Muhammad v. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

Filing 6

ORDER DISMISSING CASE. Signed by Judge Charles R. Breyer on September 11, 2006. (crblc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/11/2006) Additional attachment(s) added on 9/11/2006 (be, COURT STAFF).

Muhammad v. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

Doc. 6

Case 3:06-cv-05298-CRB

Document 6

Filed 09/11/2006

Page 1 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 I N THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

U n it e d United States District Court

11 12
For the Northern District of California

C H A R L E S MUHAMMAD, P l a i n ti f f , v. U S DEPT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMEN T, De fend ant. /

N o . C 06-05298 CRB ORDER

13 14 15 16 17

P l a in t if f Charles Muhammed ("Muhammed") has filed a complaint against the U.S. D e p a r t m e n t of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD"). This lawsuit is one of several a c t io n s recently filed by Muhammed. 1 The complaint in this case states that HUD "violated t h e following human rights." It then lists five articles from the United Nations Universal

18 19 20 21 De clara tion of Human Rights. See G.A. Res. 217A (III), arts. 2-6, U.N. GAOR, 3d Sess., 22 U .N . Doc. A/810 (Dec. 12, 1948). That is Muhammed's complaint, in its entirety. 23 24 25 26 27 28 Within a span of two weeks, Muhammed has filed a total of eleven lawsuits in this c o u r t . See Muhammad v. U.S. Dep't of Labor, No. 06-4893 (N.D. Cal. filed Aug. 14, 2006); M u h a m m a d v. U.S. Dep't of Transp., No. 06-4893 (N.D. Cal. filed Aug. 14, 2006); Muhammad v . U.S. Dep't of Energy, No. 06-4916 (N.D. Cal. filed Aug. 15, 2006); Muhammad v. State of N e w Mexico, No. 06-4893 (N.D. Cal. filed Aug. 16, 2006); Muhammad v. State of California, N o . 06-4953 (N.D. Cal. filed Aug. 16, 2006); Muhammad v. U.S. Dep't of Hous. & Urban Dev., No. 06-5298 (N.D. Cal. filed Aug. 29, 2006); Muhammad v. Kelly Village Apt., No. 06-5299 ( N .D . Cal. filed Aug. 29, 2006); Muhammad v. U.S. Dep't of Health & Hum Servs., No. 065 3 0 0 (N.D. Cal. filed Aug. 29, 2006); Muhammad v. State of Utah, No. 06-5360 (N.D. Cal. filed A u g . 31, 2006); Muhammad v. 2 N.B.C., No. 06-5361 (N.D. Cal. filed Aug. 31, 2006); M uham mad v. Kassig, No. 06-5362 (N.D. Cal. filed Aug. 31, 2006).
Dockets.Justia.com
1

Case 3:06-cv-05298-CRB

Document 6

Filed 09/11/2006

Page 2 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Pla intif f has also filed two additional documents in connection with his complaint. The first is an application to proceed in forma pauperis. The second is a request for a restrainin g order against HUD. In this second document, Muhammed asks this Court to o r d e r HUD "to supply [him] with a home" and to pay for his temporary housing at a cost of $60 .00 per night for a room at Motel 6. He further requests this Court to evict HUD from its o f f i c e s due to its "criminal activity" under the "RICO Act." He demands "that criminal c h a r g e s be brought, against the director and his staff, for taking salaries for no work." Finally, he describes an incident at HUD's offices in which "he was given a list of low cost apartm ents" but was told that "HUD had no applications" for housing. He goes on to state that he has been denied housing "because I am a convicted felon, . . . because I am black, . . . becau se I am an [A]merican Indian with only two Inches." In addition, the request for a restrainin g order indicates that Muhammed has "designed a letter to stop a[n] elephant in its track s," and it contains notes about "John Ford F.B.I. Mind Control." U n d e r Rule 12(b)(6), "a court need not accept as true unreasonable inferences, u n w a r r a n t e d deductions of fact, or conclusory legal allegations cast in the form of factual a l l eg a t i o n s. " Bureerong v. Uvawas, 922 F. Supp. 1450, 1462 (C.D. Cal. 1996); see also Bro wn v. City of Oneonta, 235 F.3d 769, 780 (2d Cir. 2000) (Kearse, C.J., dissenting) ( n o t in g that under Rule 12(b)(6) facts must be taken as true "unless they are fanciful or delus ionary, or . . . they represent only legal conclusions."); Aulson v. Blanchard, 83 F.3d 1, 3 (1st Cir. 1996) (noting that a court need not "swallow the plaintiff's invective hook, line, a n d sinker; bald assertions, unsupportable conclusions, periphrastic circumlocutions, and the like need not be credited"). M o r e o v e r , according to Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989), a court may d i s m i ss an in forma pauperis complaint sua sponte under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) when the c l a im is "fantastic or delusional." 490 U.S. at 328. The Neitzke Court noted: "A patently i n s u b s ta n t i al complaint may be dismissed, for example, for want of subject-matter jurisd ictio n under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). 490 U.S. 319, 327 n.6 (1989); s e e also Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 536-37 (1974) (noting that federal courts lack 2

United States District Court

11 12
For the Northern District of California

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Case 3:06-cv-05298-CRB

Document 6

Filed 09/11/2006

Page 3 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

pow er to entertain claims that are "so attenuated and unsubstantial as to be absolutely devoid of merit"); Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 682-83 (1946). Taken as a whole, Muhammed's complaint is patently insubstantial. Plaintiff has not s t a te d a coherent claim against the defendants; indeed, he has alleged no legally significant f a c t s regarding any action by HUD or its officers at all. The complaint is hereby DI SM ISS ED with prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED.

D a t e d : September 11, 2006

CHARLES R. BREYER U N I TE D STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

United States District Court

11 12
For the Northern District of California

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

G:\ CRBALL\ 2006\5298\ Order 1. wpd