Legal Opinion
E Bruce Brimacombe v. William Russell Miller, et al.
District Court, D. Arizona
Decided August 3, 2026No. 2:26-cv-04845Unknown
1Opinion
1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 E Bruce Brimacombe, No. CV-26-04845-PHX-SMB 10 Plaintiffs, ORDER 11 v. 12 William Russell Miller, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 The Court now considers Plaintiff Bruce Brimacombe’s Amended Complaint (Doc. 16 9). After screening the Amended Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the 17 Court dismisses the Amended Complaint for the reasons explained below. 18 I. LEGAL STANDARD 19 The Court must review the Complaint to determine whether the action: (i) is 20 frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Ashcroft v. IqbalSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
- Lopez v. SmithCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2000
- Watters v. Wachovia Bank, N. A.Supreme Court of the United States · 2007
- Theodore C. Swartz v. Kpmg Llp, and Presidio Advisory Services Inc. Deutsche Bank Ag Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2007
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.