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)

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