Carroll v. Price
Filing
10
ORDER Directing Clerk of Court to File Lodged First Amended Complaint; ORDER Directing Clerk of Court to Randomly Assign District Judge to Action; FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that 9 Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint be DISMISSE D, Without Leave to Amend, as Frivolous signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 5/1/2018. This case has been assigned to Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill and Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe. The new case number is 1:17-cv-01312-LJO-BAM (PC). Referred to Judge O'Neill. Objections to F&R due within fourteen (14) days. (Jessen, A)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
RONALD J. CARROLL,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
v.
BRANDON PRICE, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
17
Case No. 1:17-cv-01312-BAM
ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT
TO FILE LODGED FIRST AMENDED
COMPLAINT
(ECF No. 8)
ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT
TO RANDOMLY ASSIGN DISTRICT
JUDGE TO ACTION
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO
DISMISS ACTION AS FRIVOLOUS
18
FOURTEEN-DAY DEADLINE
19
20
Plaintiff Ronald J. Carroll (“Plaintiff”) is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma
21
pauperis in this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff initiated this action on
22
October 2, 2017. (ECF No. 1.) Before the Court could screen Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to
23
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), Plaintiff lodged a first amended complaint on February 2, 2018. (ECF
24
No. 8.)
25
At this stage in the proceedings, Plaintiff may amend his complaint once as a matter of
26
course. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Therefore, the Clerk of the Court shall be directed to file his first
27
amended complaint lodged on February 2, 2018. (ECF No. 8.) In the interest of judicial
28
1
1
economy, the Court now turns to screening of the first amended complaint.
2
I.
Screening Requirement and Standard
3
“Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court
4
shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that ... the action or appeal ... is frivolous
5
or malicious; [or] . . . fails state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. §
6
1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
7
A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
8
pleader is entitled to relief . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not
9
required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere
10
conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell
11
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). While a plaintiff’s allegations are taken as
12
true, courts “are not required to indulge unwarranted inferences.” Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,
13
572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
14
To survive screening, Plaintiff’s claims must be facially plausible, which requires
15
sufficient factual detail to allow the Court to reasonably infer that each named defendant is liable
16
for the misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quotation marks omitted); Moss v. U.S. Secret
17
Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The sheer possibility that a defendant acted unlawfully
18
is not sufficient, and mere consistency with liability falls short of satisfying the plausibility
19
standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quotation marks omitted); Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.
Plaintiff’s Allegations
20
II.
21
In his first amended complaint, Plaintiff alleges as follows:
22
I have a comuper Chip Implanted and a wire battery pack in my back. Implanted
in me in 1976 in Bainbridge, Ga. After an auto accident Mary Macodonie put an
ether mask on my nose and mouth. Placing me unconsious for 13 hours. Scars
are stillon back to prove operation. Back was never injuied. Control Center
Annonouncer Poisons my mind and body. And uses Electricity to torture me.
And uses me to control the weather and mind control all over the world. .
Everything is hook up to my spinenal collum and brain, Charges against me were
falsified. By said Person . . . Judg, Felex, Bakersfield court ordered A ultrasound
in 2006. Never was Done.
23
24
25
26
27
28
(ECF No. 8 at 3) (unedited text).
2
1
2
As relief, Plaintiff seeks an order for an ultrasound viewed by witnesses and removal of
the device (and wire and battery pack) on film. Id.
3
III.
Discussion
4
A pleading is “factual[ly] frivolous[ ]” when “the facts alleged rise to the level of the
5
irrational or the wholly incredible, whether or not there are judicially noticeable facts available to
6
contradict them.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 25–26 (1992). Section 1915 gives courts
7
“the unusual power to pierce the veil” of a complaint such as that filed by the plaintiff and to
8
“dismiss those claims whose factual contentions are clearly baseless.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490
9
U.S. 319, 327 (1989). Clearly baseless factual allegations include those “that are ‘fanciful,’
10
‘fantastic,’ and ‘delusional.’ ” Denton, 504 U.S. at 32–33 (quoting Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 325, 327,
11
328).
12
Plaintiff’s allegations of an implanted computer chip and battery pack and a control center
13
announcer torturing him, controlling him and using him to control the weather and minds around
14
the world appear to be grounded in delusion, are factually irrational and wholly incredible.
15
Although Plaintiff purports to attach a radiographic report that identifies a thin metallic thread or
16
wire, such report lacks the hallmarks of medical report, including the radiographic image, and
17
appears to have been altered from the original, with multiple typefaces and blank spaces. (ECF
18
No. 8 at 4.) Additionally, Plaintiff’s attached “Statement of Truth” is a rambling narrative
19
alleging, among other things, that Mary Macodonie poisoned him by computer “with saved
20
poison urine and monkey dong” and he has been stalked all of his life by a person operating mind
21
control, putting dust through vent and putting hot water through plumbing. (Id. at 5-6.) Plaintiff
22
also makes assertions regarding “shooters minds” and lists Ted Bundy and Lee H. Oswald. (Id. at
23
6.)
24
IV.
Conclusion and Recommendation
25
Plaintiff’s complaint contains factual allegations that are grounded in delusion, fanciful
26
and irrational and wholly incredible. The Court therefore finds Plaintiff’s allegations to be clearly
27
baseless and frivolous. In this instance, no amendment could cure these deficiencies. Nunes v.
28
Ashcroft, 375 F.3d 805, 808 (9th Cir. 2004) (district court should grant leave to amend even if no
3
1
request was made, unless the pleading could not possibly be cured by the allegation of other
2
facts). Accordingly, leave to amend would be futile and this action should be dismissed without
3
leave to amend. See Ebner v. Fresh, Inc., 838 F.3d 958, 968 (9th Cir. 2016) (liberality of
4
amendment does not apply when amendment would be futile).
5
6
7
8
Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is HEREBY DIRECTED to (1) file Plaintiff’s lodged
first amended complaint (ECF No. 8); and (2) randomly assign a District Judge to this action.
Further, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s first amended complaint be
dismissed, without leave to amend, as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
9
These Findings and Recommendation will be submitted to the United States District Judge
10
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen
11
(14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendation, Plaintiff may file written
12
objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s
13
Findings and Recommendation.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the
14
specified time may result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the magistrate’s factual
15
findings” on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v.
16
Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).
17
18
19
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
/s/ Barbara
May 1, 2018
A. McAuliffe
_
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
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?