Olanapo v. Governor of the State of California

Filing 9

ORDER GRANTING IFP APPLICATION, DISMISSING COMPLAINT, AND DENYING MOTIONS. Signed by Judge James Donato on 4/13/2017. (jdlc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/13/2017)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 OLANAPO OLAJIDE, 8 Plaintiff, v. 9 10 11 GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, United States District Court Northern District of California Defendant. Case No. 3:17-cv-01017-JD ORDER GRANTING IFP APPLICATION, DISMISSING COMPLAINT, AND DENYING MOTIONS Re: Dkt. Nos. 1, 3, 5, 7, 8 12 13 Plaintiff Olanapo Olajide, who is acting pro se, has asked to proceed in forma pauperis 14 (“IFP”). Dkt. No. 3. He has also requested permission for electronic case filing and seeks a 15 temporary restraining order with an immediate hearing date. Dkt. Nos. 5, 7, 8. The IFP request is 16 granted, but the complaint is dismissed and the TRO is denied. Permission for electronic filing is 17 declined. 18 IFP requests are evaluated under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, and the first question is whether a 19 plaintiff’s financial status excuses payment of the court’s filing fees. The answer here is yes. 20 Olajide is unemployed, does not own a home or other physical assets, and has less than $25 in his 21 bank account. Dkt. No. 3. Olajide may proceed on an IFP basis. 22 The next question is whether the complaint is sufficient to stand, and the answer is no. The 23 Court may “at any time” dismiss an IFP complaint that “(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to 24 state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who 25 is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The standard is the same as the Federal 26 Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) standard for failure to state a claim. Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 27 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012) (citation omitted). As a pro se plaintiff, Olajide gets a liberal 28 1 construction of his complaint and the benefit of any doubt about its sufficiency, id., but the 2 pleading requirements of Rule 8 apply just as much here as in all other federal civil cases. 3 As currently framed, the complaint cannot proceed. It is a rambling discursion that runs 4 for over 23 single-spaced pages and touches on a myriad of subjects ranging from the illegitimacy 5 of the United States Code and allegations of government persecution to the nature of legal tender 6 and the gold standard. The requested relief appears to be damages in the amount of one trillion 7 dollars payable to plaintiff, among other remedies. See generally Dkt. No. 1. Nothing in the 8 complaint amounts to a plausible claim for relief. 9 While the Court has considerable doubt that amendment will be effective, Olajide may file an amended complaint no later than May 8, 2017. If Olajide chooses to amend, he should be 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 mindful of the Rule 8 pleading standards and whether the Governor of California is a proper 12 defendant. 13 14 15 16 The motions for a temporary restraining order and for an emergency hearing are denied. The request for permission to use electronic case filing is declined. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 13, 2017 17 18 JAMES DONATO United States District Judge 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?