Cavness v. Blum et al
Filing
7
ORDER OF DISMISSAL. Signed by Judge Charles R. Breyer on 5/9/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(lsS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/9/2017)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
11
12
13
14
DONALD EUGENE CAVNESS, P38865, )
)
) No. C 17-0811 CRB (PR)
Plaintiff(s),
)
) ORDER OF DISMISSAL
vs.
)
)
H. L. BLUM, et al.,
)
)
Defendant(s).
)
15
16
Plaintiff, a prisoner at San Quentin State Prison, has filed a pro se
17
complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking $100,000,000 from California
18
Department of Public Health Registrar H. L. Blum and former United States
19
Secretary of the Treasury Jacob Lew. But the complaint is incomprehensible; at
20
best, it appears that plaintiff takes issue with his birth certificate because it
21
somehow associates him, an “American National of the Moorish Nation,” with a
22
“‘Public Office’ in the United States Treasury Department of Health Vital
23
Records, Internal Revenue Service and U.S. Department of Commerce by virtue
24
of Certificate of Live Birth, State of California Certification of Vital Record.”
25
Compl. (ECF No. 1) at 4.
26
Plaintiff’s incomprehensible complaint is DISMISSED as frivolous under
27
the authority of 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) because it is without an arguable basis in
28
law. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 641 (9th Cir. 1989). There is no
1
indication whatsoever that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the
2
United States was violated by a person acting under the color of state law. See
3
West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).
4
The clerk shall terminate all pending motions as moot and close the file.
5
SO ORDERED.
6
DATED: May 9, 2017
7
CHARLES R. BREYER
United States District Judge
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
G:\PRO-SE\CRB\CR.17\Cavness, D.17-0811.dismissal.wpd
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?