Shackelford v. Kautter
Filing
3
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 6/6/2018 RECOMMENDING that 2 Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis be denied, 1 Complaint be dismissed without prejudice, and this action be dismissed. Referred to District Judge John A. Mendez. Objections due within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations. (York, M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
DAN L. SHACKELFORD,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
v.
No. 2:18-cv-0502 JAM DB PS
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
DAVID KAUTTER, IRS,
15
Defendant.
16
Plaintiff, Dan Shackelford, is proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was referred to
17
18
the undersigned in accordance with Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Pending
19
before the court are plaintiff’s complaint and motion to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28
20
U.S.C. § 1915. (ECF Nos. 1 & 2.) Therein, plaintiff seeks “disclosure of tax and banking
21
records.” (Compl. (ECF No. 1) at 5.)
The court is required to screen complaints brought by parties proceeding in forma
22
23
pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); see also Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir.
24
2000) (en banc). Here, plaintiff’s complaint is deficient. Accordingly, for the reasons stated
25
below, the undersigned will recommend that plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed without leave to
26
amend.
27
////
28
////
1
1
2
I.
Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis
Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis application makes the financial showing required by 28
3
U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). However, a determination that a plaintiff qualifies financially for in forma
4
pauperis status does not complete the inquiry required by the statute. “‘A district court may deny
5
leave to proceed in forma pauperis at the outset if it appears from the face of the proposed
6
complaint that the action is frivolous or without merit.’” Minetti v. Port of Seattle, 152 F.3d
7
1113, 1115 (9th Cir. 1998) (quoting Tripati v. First Nat. Bank & Trust, 821 F.2d 1368, 1370 (9th
8
Cir. 1987)); see also McGee v. Department of Child Support Services, 584 Fed. Appx. 638 (9th
9
Cir. 2014) (“the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying McGee’s request to proceed
10
IFP because it appears from the face of the amended complaint that McGee’s action is frivolous
11
or without merit”); Smart v. Heinze, 347 F.2d 114, 116 (9th Cir. 1965) (“It is the duty of the
12
District Court to examine any application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis to determine
13
whether the proposed proceeding has merit and if it appears that the proceeding is without merit,
14
the court is bound to deny a motion seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis.”).
15
Moreover, the court must dismiss an in forma pauperis case at any time if the allegation of
16
poverty is found to be untrue or if it is determined that the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to
17
state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against an immune
18
defendant. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). A complaint is legally frivolous when it lacks an
19
arguable basis in law or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v.
20
Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th Cir. 1984). Under this standard, a court must dismiss a
21
complaint as frivolous where it is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory or where the
22
factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).
23
To state a claim on which relief may be granted, the plaintiff must allege “enough facts to
24
state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,
25
570 (2007). In considering whether a complaint states a cognizable claim, the court accepts as
26
true the material allegations in the complaint and construes the allegations in the light most
27
favorable to the plaintiff. Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984); Hosp. Bldg. Co. v.
28
Trustees of Rex Hosp., 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976); Love v. United States, 915 F.2d 1242, 1245
2
1
(9th Cir. 1989). Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by
2
lawyers. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). However, the court need not accept as true
3
conclusory allegations, unreasonable inferences, or unwarranted deductions of fact. Western
4
Mining Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d 618, 624 (9th Cir. 1981).
5
The minimum requirements for a civil complaint in federal court are as follows:
6
A pleading which sets forth a claim for relief . . . shall contain (1) a
short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the court’s
jurisdiction depends . . . , (2) a short and plain statement of the
claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and (3) a demand
for judgment for the relief the pleader seeks.
7
8
9
10
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a).
II.
Plaintiff’s Complaint
11
“[T]he in forma pauperis statute . . . ‘accords judges not only the authority to dismiss a
12
claim based on an indisputably meritless legal theory, but also the unusual power to pierce the
13
veil of the complaint’s factual allegations and dismiss those claims whose factual contentions are
14
clearly baseless.’” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32 (1992) (quoting Neitzke, 490 U.S. at
15
327). “Examples of the latter class are claims describing fantastic or delusional scenarios, claims
16
with which federal district judges are all too familiar.” Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 328.
17
Here, the complaint alleges that plaintiff’s family “controlled the Pure Oil Co, up until
18
1963 when JFK ripped that off making it ‘Eastern Union 76 Oil Co.’” (Compl. (ECF No. 1) at 6.)
19
Plaintiff “asked in writing that . . . Pure Oil Co. marketing district be restored,” but “Regan”
20
engaged in “bribery,” and “‘forgot’ to pay” plaintiff. (Id. at 8-9.) In 1996, “Bill Clinton . . .
21
rigged a $10 million Publisher’s Clearing House Contest or $12 million Reader’s Digest contest
22
in” plaintiff’s favor. (Id. at 9.) Later, “Bill Clinton’s backers (Hollywood & ‘computers,’
23
‘Jewish’ HEROIN)” planned to “stick” plaintiff with “an AIDS needle set-up at LA County
24
Mental Health.” (Id. at 12.)
25
In this regard, not only does the complaint fail to state a claim, but the complaint’s
26
allegations are also delusional and frivolous. See Denton, 504 U.S. at 33 (“a finding of factual
27
frivolousness is appropriate when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly
28
incredible, whether or not there are judicially noticeable facts available to contradict them”).
3
1
III.
Leave to Amend
For the reasons stated above, plaintiff’s complaint should be dismissed. The undersigned
2
3
has carefully considered whether plaintiff may amend the complaint to state a claim upon which
4
relief can be granted. “Valid reasons for denying leave to amend include undue delay, bad faith,
5
prejudice, and futility.” California Architectural Bldg. Prod. v. Franciscan Ceramics, 818 F.2d
6
1466, 1472 (9th Cir. 1988); see also Klamath-Lake Pharm. Ass’n v. Klamath Med. Serv. Bureau,
7
701 F.2d 1276, 1293 (9th Cir. 1983) (holding that while leave to amend shall be freely given, the
8
court does not have to allow futile amendments).
9
10
Here, given the defects noted above, the undersigned finds that granting plaintiff leave to
amend would be futile.
11
CONCLUSION
12
Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:
13
1. Plaintiff’s March 8, 2018 application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) be
14
denied;
15
2. Plaintiff’s March 8, 2018 complaint (ECF No. 1) be dismissed without prejudice; and
16
3. This action be dismissed.
17
These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge
18
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen (14)
19
days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiffs may file written
20
objections with the court. A document containing objections should be titled “Objections to
21
Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file
22
objections within the specified time may, under certain circumstances, waive the right to appeal
23
the District Court’s order. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
24
Dated: June 6, 2018
25
26
DLB:6
DB/orders/orders.pro se/shacking0501.dism.f&rs
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?