Weaver v. Lewis et al

Filing 4

ORDER DISMISSING CASE; ORDER DENYING LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 7/25/14. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/25/2014)

*E-Filed 7/25/14*

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

5
6

WILLIE WEAVER,
Plaintiff,

7

ORDER DENYING LEAVE TO
PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

WARDEN GREG LEWIS, et al.,
Defendants.

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

ORDER OF DISMISSAL;

v.

8
9

No. C 14-2964 RS (PR)

/

11

INTRODUCTION

12
13

This is a federal civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. A review of the

14

complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) shows that the claims are frivolous. Accordingly, the

15

action is DISMISSED with prejudice.
DISCUSSION

16
17
18

A.

Standard of Review
A “complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim

19

to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009)

20

(quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has facial

21

plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the

22

reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (quoting

23

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). Furthermore, a court “is not required to accept legal conclusions

24

cast in the form of factual allegations if those conclusions cannot reasonably be drawn from

25

the facts alleged.” Clegg v. Cult Awareness Network, 18 F.3d 752, 754–55 (9th Cir. 1994).

26

Dismissal is appropriate when the complaint is “frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim

27

upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). Dismissal under § 1915 for

28
No. C 14-2964 RS (PR)
ORDER OF DISMISSAL

frivolousness prior to service is appropriate where no legal interest is implicated, i.e., where a

2

claim is premised on an indisputably meritless legal theory or is clearly lacking any factual

3

basis. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989); Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d

4

1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995). If as a matter of law “it is clear that no relief could be granted

5

under any set of facts that could be proved consistent with the allegations,” Hishon v. King &

6

Spaulding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984), “a claim must be dismissed, without regard to whether it

7

is based on an outlandish legal theory or on a close but ultimately unavailing one,” Williams,

8

490 U.S. at 327. To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two

9

essential elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

1

was violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the

11

color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

12

B.

13

Disposition
Plaintiff claims that he has not received his shaving razors on some days. It is clear

14

that such claims are frivolous and that relief could not be granted under any set of facts that

15

could be proved consistent with the allegations. Hishon, 467 U.S. at 73. The claims are

16

DISMISSED with prejudice. Plaintiff’s application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis

17

(Docket No. 3) is DENIED because the action is frivolous. Tripati v. First Nat. Bank &

18

Trust, 821 F.2d 1368, 1370 (9th Cir. 1987). The Clerk shall terminate Docket No. 3, enter

19

judgment in favor of defendants, and close the file.

20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: July 25, 2014
RICHARD SEEBORG
United States District Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

No. C 14-2964 RS (PR)
ORDER OF DISMISSAL

2