Scrigna v. Romney et al

Filing 5

ORDER Denying 2 Plaintiff's Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis; and Deferring Ruling on 3 Plaintiff's Motion for Injunction. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 11/15/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service). (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/15/2012)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 ANGELO Y. SCRIGNA, 9 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 12 13 No. C-12-5704 EMC Plaintiff, v. MITT ROMNEY, et al., Defendants. ___________________________________/ ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS; AND DEFERRING RULING ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR INJUNCTION (Docket Nos. 2-3) 14 15 16 Plaintiff Angelo Y. Scrigna has filed suit against Defendants Mitt Romney, al-Qaeda, and 17 Reed Smith LLP. Currently pending before the Court are Mr. Scrigna’s application to proceed in 18 forma pauperis and his motion for an injunction. 19 The Court addresses first the application to proceed in forma pauperis. When presented with 20 such an application, a court must first determine if the applicant satisfies the economic eligibility 21 requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1226 n.5 (9th Cir. 22 1984). Section 1915(a) does not require an applicant to demonstrate absolute destitution. See 23 McCone v. Holiday Inn Convention Ctr., 797 F.2d 853, 854 (10th Cir. 1982) (citing Adkins v. E.I. 24 Du Pont de Nemours & Co., Inc., 335 U.S. 331, 339(1948)). Nevertheless, having reviewed Mr. 25 Scrigna’s financial affidavit, the Court concludes that he has not satisfied the economic eligibility 26 requirement. Although Mr. Scrigna states in his affidavit that he is not presently employed, has 27 monthly expenses of approximately $1,800, and has a credit card debt of $8,000, he also identifies 28 1 significant assets, in particular, a $60,000 home for which he has no mortgage and $6,000 in cash. 2 The Court therefore denies Mr. Scrigna’s application. 3 In order for Mr. Scrigna to proceed with this lawsuit, he must pay the filing fee of $350. The opportunity to decide whether he intends to pursue this lawsuit. Much of the relief he has sought has 6 effectively been rendered moot now that President Obama has been re-elected. To the extent Mr. 7 Scrigna still seeks monetary damages, the Court has serious doubts about the viability of his claims. 8 For example, it is not clear how Mr. Scrigna has suffered any monetary damages. Furthermore, Mr. 9 Scrigna’s claim that the Reed Smith law firm has represented Mitt Romney is not supported by the 10 document he has submitted (i.e., the articles). Finally, simply because attorneys at 11 For the Northern District of California Court, however, shall temporarily defer payment of the fee in order to give Mr. Scrigna an 5 United States District Court 4 Reed Smith may have represented detainees at Guantanamo Bay is far from proof that the firm has 12 represented al-Qaeda. 13 If Mr. Scrigna chooses to pursue this litigation and pay the filing fee, then the Court intends 14 to issue an order to show cause, instructing Mr. Scrigna to explain why his case should not be 15 dismissed (with prejudice) based on the problems identified above. See Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1226 16 (noting that, “[w]here the plaintiff has paid the filing fees, the court may not dismiss [the] action 17 before process is issued and served, and without giving [the] plaintiff notice that the court intends to 18 dismiss, an opportunity to oppose it, and a statement of the grounds for dismissal, and an 19 opportunity to amend”). However, if Mr. Scrigna decides not to pursue this litigation, then the 20 Court shall not require him to pay the filing fee. 21 Accordingly, the Court hereby orders that Mr. Scrigna has until December 3, 2012, to pay 22 the filing fee of $350 in order to continue this lawsuit. If Mr. Scrigna does not pay the fee, then this 23 case shall automatically be dismissed (without prejudice). If Mr. Scrigna does pay the fee, then this 24 case shall proceed and Mr. Scrigna will have the responsibility of serving the complaint and any 25 amendments, scheduling orders, and attachments pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 on 26 all Defendants. Mr. Scrigna will also have a continuing obligation to keep the Court informed of his 27 current address. Failure to do so may result in dismissal of this action. Finally, Mr. Scrigna can 28 2 1 expect this Court will issue an order to show cause as to why his case should not be dismissed (with 2 prejudice) based on the problems identified by the Court above. 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 6 Dated: November 15, 2012 7 _________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN United States District Judge 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

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?