Hurt v. The Black Panther Party

Filing 2

ORDER Re Pre-filing Review. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 1/29/2013. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service). (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/29/2013)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 TYRONE HURT, 9 Plaintiff, v. 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 No. C-13-80012 MISC EMC THE BLACK PANTHER PARTY, 12 ORDER RE PRE-FILING REVIEW Defendant. ___________________________________/ 13 14 15 Plaintiff in this case is subject to pre-filing review for all complaints filed in this District 16 pursuant to a January 11, 2013 Order in the case Hurt v. All Sweepstakes Contests, No. C-12-4187 17 EMC (N.D. Cal. Jan. 11, 2012) (Docket No. 18). In that case, the Court found that Plaintiff had 18 filed twenty one lawsuits in the previous year, the majority of which had been dismissed with 19 prejudice for failure to state a claim. The Court found that Plaintiff’s complaints are “often vague, 20 confusing, or unintelligible” and that where the substance of his allegations can be discerned, they 21 are often based on specious legal theories. In many of the cases, Plaintiff had brought suit based on 22 sweeping allegations of general societal wrongs to which he had no personal connection. The 23 named defendants were often immune to suit or not clearly identified. 24 In this case, Plaintiff names the Black Panther Party as a defendant, but his complaint, as best 25 as can be discerned, seems to seek a writ of habeas corpus for certain members of the Black Panther 26 Party who have been imprisoned “allegedly for the murder of a ‘white’ police officer.” Complaint at 27 2. Defendant does not name the Party members so imprisoned, provide the date or court of 28 conviction, or their current place of incarceration. He provides no facts or argument as to why he 1 has standing to bring a habeas petition on their behalf. In short, the complaint is both profoundly 2 deficient, both factually and legally. 3 The Clerk of the Court is therefore directed not to file Plaintiff’s complaint in this matter. 4 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 7 Dated: January 29, 2013 8 _________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN United States District Judge 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 2

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?