Louis Gomez v. Usaa Federal Savings Bank and Janette Adger Mills

holding that a court dismissing a pro se complaint must provide sufficient guidance to the plaintiff to understand the deficiencies that need to be addressed in order to state a claim | holding that a court dismissing a pro se complaint must provide sufficient guidance to the plaintiff to understand the deficiencies that need to be addressed in order to state a claim | holding sua sponte dismissal to be appro- priate only when extraordinary circumstances favor allowing the question to be raised on the court’s own motion | suggesting that district courts are generally required to allow an opportunity to amend before dismissing a pro se claim suapponte | stating that pro se complaints are generally “not dismiss[ed] without granting leave to amend at least once when a liberal reading of the complaint gives any indication that a valid claim might be stated” (internal quotation marks omitted) | explaining that, even in cases concerning dismissals under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii | vacating dismissal of case sua sponte for lack of venue, but under circumstances in which leave to amend had not been allowed | reviewing judgment which dismissed pro se, in forma pauperis complaint sua sponte without prejudice pursuant to S 1915(e)(2) and holding that dismissal of the case for failure to state a claim would be improper without leave to amend | pro se plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis should be afforded same opportunity to amend complaint as pro se fee-paid plaintiff | “A district court may not dismiss a case sua sponte for improper venue absent extraordinary circumstances.” | “A district court may not dismiss a case sua sponte for improper venue absent extraordinary circumstances.” | “The problem with [plaintiffs] causes of action is substantive; better pleading will not cure it. Repleading would thus be futile.” | "A district court may not dismiss a case sua sponte for improper venue absent extraordinary circumstances" | “A district court may not dismiss a case sua sponte for improper venue absent extraordinary circumstances.” | “A district court may not dismiss a case sua sponte for improper venue absent extraordinary circumstances.” (citing Concession Consultants, Inc. v. Mirisch, 355 F.2d 369, 371 (2d Cir. 1966) | “[T]he court should not dismiss without granting leave to amend at least once when a liberal reading of the complaint gives any indication that a valid claim might be stated.” | emphasis 2 The request for recusal is denied. “[J]udicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality motion.” Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994 | that the Court should grant leave to amend “unless the court can rule out any possibility, however unlikely it might be, that an amended complaint would be successful in stating a claim” | pro se plaintiffs, whether proceeding in forma pauperis or those who have paid the filing fee, should be permitted to amend the complaint at least once when it “gives any indication that a valid claim might be stated” | pro se plaintiffs, whether proceeding in forma pauperis or those who have paid the filing fee, should be permitted to amend the complaint at least once when it “gives any indication that a valid claim might be stated” | pro se plaintiffs, whether proceeding in forma pauperis or those who have paid the filing fee, should be permitted to at least once amend their complaint when it “gives any indication that a valid claim might be stated” | pro se plaintiffs, whether proceeding in forma pauperis or those who have paid the filing fee, should be permitted to at least once amend their complaint when it “gives any indication that a valid claim might be stated” | pro se plaintiffs, whether proceeding in forma pauperis or those who have paid the filing fee, should be permitted to at least once amend their complaint when it “gives any indication that a valid claim might be stated” | “[A] pro se complaint is to be read liberally,” and “the court should not dismiss withou