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)

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