Elliott v. Lewis

Filing 2

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 6/6/11. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/6/2011)

**E-filed 6/6/11**

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12

VANCE S. ELLIOT,
Plaintiff,
v.

13
14

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT
PREJUDICE APPLICATION TO
PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

MARCUS LEWIS,

15

No. C 11-80128 RS

Defendant.
____________________________________/

16
17

By order issued in Case No 04-1600 MHP, on August 18, 2004, Judge Marilyn Patel of this

18

district required pre-filing review of all papers submitted by plaintiff involving any claims that were

19

the subject of or related to the claims in that action. Plaintiff has now submitted what he

20

characterizes as a “complaint for blackmail,” asserting that defendant Marcus Lewis, an “account

21

manager supervisor,” allegedly has frozen an account in plaintiff’s name at Benefits Management

22

Corporation, until and unless plaintiff dismisses a suit against the company that is pending in San

23

Francisco Superior Court. These allegations do not appear to relate to the matters plaintiff raised in

24

Case No. 04-1600 MHP, and therefore the order in that case does not serve as a basis to deny

25

plaintiff permission to proceed in this action.

26

Plaintiff, however, also seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

27

1915, a district court may authorize the commencement of a civil action in forma pauperis if the

28

court is satisfied that the would-be plaintiff cannot pay the filing fees necessary to pursue the action.

1

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). The court may deny in forma pauperis status, however, if it appears from

2

the face of the proposed complaint that the action is frivolous or without merit. O’Loughlin v. Doe,

3

920 F.2d 614, 616 (9th Cir. 1990); Tripati v. First National Bank & Trust, 821 F.2d 1368, 1370 (9th

4

Cir. 1987).

5

As presently drafted, the complaint is without merit in that it fails to set forth the basis for

6

any claim over which there would be federal jurisdiction. It is also dubious that plaintiff could

7

assert any viable claim against Lewis individually, even assuming there could be some basis to

8

contend that Benefits Management Corporation lacks legal grounds to freeze the account.

9

Accordingly, plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is denied without prejudice. If
plaintiff does not pay the filing fee within thirty (30) days of receiving this order, the Court will

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

dismiss the action without prejudice.

12
13
14

Dated: 6/6/11
RICHARD SEEBORG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

2

1
2
3
4
5

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT A HARD COPY OF THIS ORDER WAS MAILED TO:
Vance S. Elliott
640 Eddy Street, #218
San Francisco, CA 94109

DATED: 6/6/11

6
7

/s/ Chambers Staff
Chambers of Judge Richard Seeborg

8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3