James Storm SHIRLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNIVERSITY OF IDAHO; COLLEGE OF LAW, at University of Idaho; Idaho State Board of Education, Defendants-Appellees, 800 F.3d 1177-1193

ORDER On December 18, 2014, the district court denied appellant’s motion to amend his complaint a second time and dismissed appellant’s claims with prejudice. The district court based the dismissal on its conelusion that the proposed second amended complaint contained allegations that were irreconcilably contradictory to allegations made in the original complaint and first amended complaint. We summarily reverse, because the allegations in the proposed second amended complaint cited by the district court were not so patently inconsistent with appellant’s previous allegations as to warrant a screening dismissal.

See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (district court shall screen and dismiss an action filed by a plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis if the action “is frivolous or malicious,” “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief’). On remand, the district court shall file the proposed second amended complaint and order service on defendants. REVERSED and REMANDED.