Sierra v. Grannis et al

Filing 18

ORDER Sua Sponte DISMISSING Complaint as Frivolous; ORDER DENYING 10 Motion for Extension of Time as MOOT, signed by District Judge Roger T. Benitez on 1/20/2009. CASE CLOSED. (Sondheim, M)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 I. P ROCEDURAL HISTORY On June 23, 2008, Plaintiff, an inmate currently incarcerated at the California State P r is o n located in Corcoran, California and proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights Complaint p u rs u a n t to 42 U.S.C. 1983. Plaintiff did not prepay the $350 filing fee mandated by 28 -10 8 cv 0 8 8 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA FRESNO DIVISION KENNETH ALAN SIERRA, CDCR #D-00119, P l a i n t if f , Civil No. 08-0887 RTB (CAB) OR D ER : vs . (1) SUA SPONTE DISMISSING C O M PL A IN T AS FRIVOLOUS PU R S U A N T TO 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b); G R AN N IS , et al., AND (2) DENYING MOTION FOR E X T E N S I O N OF TIME [Doc. No. 10] A S MOOT Defendants. C : \W IN D O W S \Te m p \n o te s 1 0 1 A A 1 \ ~ 1 20 9 9 06 . w p d 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 U .S.C . 1914(a) to commence a civil action; instead, he filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pa u p e ris ("IFP") pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(a) [Doc. No. 2]. The Court granted Plaintiff's M o tio n to Proceed IFP on June 27, 2008 [Doc. No. 4]. Plaintiff filed a "Motion for Extension o f Time" on September 15, 2008 [Doc. No. 10]. O n November 25, 2008, this matter was reassigned to District Judge Roger T. Benitez for all further proceedings [Doc. No. 15]. II. S CREENING PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2) & 1915A(b) T h e Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA") obligates the Court to review complaints file d by all persons proceeding IFP and by those, like Plaintiff, who are "incarcerated or d e ta in e d in any facility [and] accused of, sentenced for, or adjudicated delinquent for, violations o f criminal law or the terms or conditions of parole, probation, pretrial release, or diversionary p ro gra m ," "as soon as practicable after docketing." See 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b). U n d e r these provisions, the Court must sua sponte dismiss any IFP or prisoner complaint, or any p o rtio n thereof, which is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or which seeks damages from defendants who are immune. See 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A; Lopez v. Smith, 2 0 3 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) ( 1915(e)(2)); Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 4 4 3 , 446 (9th Cir. 2000) ( 1915A). B e fo re amendment by the PLRA, the former 28 U.S.C. 1915(d) permitted sua sponte d i sm i ss a l of only frivolous and malicious claims. Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1126, 1130. An action is frivo lo u s if it lacks an arguable basis in either law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 3 2 4 (1989). However 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2) and 1915A now mandate that the court reviewing a n IFP or prisoner's suit make and rule on its own motion to dismiss before effecting service of th e Complaint by the U.S. Marshal pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P. 4(c)(3). Id. at 1127 ("[S]ection 1 9 1 5 (e ) not only permits, but requires a district court to dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint th a t fails to state a claim."); see also Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (discu ssin g 28 U.S.C. 1915A). //// -2- C : \W IN D O W S \Te m p \n o te s 1 0 1 A A 1 \ ~ 1 20 9 9 06 . w p d 0 8 cv 0 8 8 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 "[W ]h e n determining whether a complaint states a claim, a court must accept as true all a lle ga tio n s of material fact and must construe those facts in the light most favorable to the p la in tiff. " Resnick, 213 F.3d at 447; Barren, 152 F.3d at 1194 (noting that 1915(e)(2) "p ara l lels the language of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)"). In addition, the Court's d u ty to liberally construe a pro se's pleadings, see Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Dept., 8 3 9 F.2d 621, 623 (9th Cir. 1988), is "particularly important in civil rights cases." Ferdik v. B o n z e le t, 963 F.2d 1258, 1261 (9th Cir. 1992). Se c tio n 1983 imposes two essential proof requirements upon a claimant: (1) that a person a c tin g under color of state law committed the conduct at issue, and (2) that the conduct deprived th e claimant of some right, privilege, or immunity protected by the Constitution or laws of the U n ited States. See 42 U.S.C. 1983; Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 535 (1981), overruled o n other grounds by Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 328 (1986); Haygood v. Younger, 769 F .2 d 1350, 1354 (9th Cir. 1985) (en banc). H e re , the allegations in Plaintiff's Complaint are nearly incomprehensible. Very little o f Plaintiff's Complaint is discernible but he appears to allege that he was known to former P resid e n t John F. Kennedy, and his brother Robert F. Kennedy, as "Kenny." (Compl. at 8.) P lain tiff further claims that he is the "source as to the identify of the riflemen on the grassy knoll in Dallas, Texas." (Id.) Plaintiff also appears to be seeking recovery of his World Series ring that he received as a member of the Florida Marlins baseball team. (Id. at 3.) In reviewing the Complaint, it is simply impossible to understand the underlying factual a llega tio n s that Plaintiff claims give rise to the alleged constitutional violation. A complaint is frivo lo u s "where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 3 1 9 , 325 (1989). Here, the Court finds Plaintiff's claims to be frivolous under 1915(e)(2)(B) b ec au se they lack even "an arguable basis either in law or in fact," and appear "fanciful," "fa n ta stic ," or "delusional." Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 325, 328. /// /// /// -3- C : \W IN D O W S \Te m p \n o te s 1 0 1 A A 1 \ ~ 1 20 9 9 06 . w p d 0 8 cv 0 8 8 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 D A T E D : January 20, 2009 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 I I I. C ONCLUSION AND ORDER G o o d cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: Plaintiff's Complaint [Doc. No. 1] is DISMISSED without prejudice as frivolous. See 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(b) & 1915A(b). Moreover, because the Court finds amendment of Plaintiff's 1983 claims would be futile at this time, leave to amend is DENIED. See Cahill v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 80 F.3d 336, 339 (9th Cir. 1996) (denial of a leave to amend is not an abuse of discretion where further amendment would be futile); see also Robinson v. California Bd. of Prison Terms, 997 F. Supp. 1303, 1308 (C.D. Cal. 1998) ("Since plaintiff has not, and cannot, state a claim containing an arguable basis in law, this action should be dismissed without leave to amend; any amendment would be futile.") (citing Newland v. Dalton, 81 F.3d 904, 907 (9th Cir. 1996)). In addition, Plaintiff's "Motion for Extension of Time" [Doc. No. 10] is DENIED as moot. The Clerk shall close the file. H o n . Roger T. Benitez U n ite d States District Judge C : \W IN D O W S \Te m p \n o te s 1 0 1 A A 1 \ ~ 1 20 9 9 06 . w p d -4- 0 8 cv 0 8 8 7

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?