Edison v. United States Secret Service
Filing
4
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 10/10/18 RECOMMENDING that 2 Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis filed by Lewis Edison be denied; that 1 Complaint filed by Lewis Edison be dismissed without prejudice; and that this action be dismissed. Referred to Judge Troy L. Nunley. Objections due within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations. (Coll, A)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
LEWIS EDISON,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
No. 2:18-cv-1194 TLN DB PS
v.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE,
15
Defendant.
16
Plaintiff, Lewis Edison, is proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was referred to the
17
18
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 complains about “wrongful imprisonment,
21
harassment,” and “torture.” (Compl. (ECF No. 1) at 8.)
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
6
The minimum requirements for a civil complaint in federal court, as explained by Rule 8
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Rules”), are as follows:
7
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.
8
9
10
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a).
11
II.
Plaintiff’s Complaint
12
“[T]he in forma pauperis statute . . . ‘accords judges not only the authority to dismiss a
13
claim based on an indisputably meritless legal theory, but also the unusual power to pierce the
14
veil of the complaint’s factual allegations and dismiss those claims whose factual contentions are
15
clearly baseless.’” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32 (1992) (quoting Neitzke, 490 U.S. at
16
327). “Examples of the latter class are claims describing fantastic or delusional scenarios, claims
17
with which federal district judges are all too familiar.” Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 328.
Here, the complaint alleges that the defendant is following plaintiff “everywhere with
18
19
space satellites with powerful beams locked on to him” and that they “hit him while he slept with
20
hammer, awaken him constantly keep him awake threaten insult and slander him in hundreds of
21
rock and roll songs.” (Compl. (ECF No. 1) at 6.) Moreover, on March 13, 2018, defendant
22
“beamed maybe 50 people being run over on him they smash their run over faces a hundred
23
people being murdered tortured on him.” (Id.)
In this regard, the complaint’s allegations are delusional and frivolous. See Denton, 504
24
25
U.S. at 33 (“a finding of factual frivolousness is appropriate when the facts alleged rise to the
26
level of the irrational or the wholly incredible, whether or not there are judicially noticeable facts
27
available to contradict them”).
28
////
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 May 11, 2018 application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) be
14
denied;
15
2. Plaintiff’s May 11, 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: October 10, 2018
25
26
27
28
DLB:6
DB/orders/orders.pro se/edison1194.dism.f&rs
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?