Liberatore v. State of California et al

Filing 7

ORDER DISMISSING CASE. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 6/14/18. The deputy clerk hereby certifies that on 6/14/18 a copy of this order was served by sending it via first-class mail to the address of each non-CM/ECF user listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/14/2018)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RONALD STEVENS LIBERATORE,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Plaintiff,

Case No. 18-cv-01556-RS (PR)

12

v.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

13
14

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,
Defendants.

15
16
17

Plaintiff alleges that the State of California and a “Computer Company” are

18

watching and listening to him; putting him to sleep; making him tired; attacking his body;

19

and controlling his thoughts, memory, actions, and bodily functions. (Compl., Dkt. No. 1

20

at 4-13.) President Ronald Reagan initiated this surveillance and harassment. (Id. at 4.)

21

Plaintiff “told the 40th president that ‘if you’re going to touch my cell or me by computor

22

[sic], comfort me only.’” (Id.) (emphasis in original). This 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights

23

action will be dismissed with prejudice because the allegations are irrational and wholly

24

incredible.

25

A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a

26

prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a

27

governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any

28

cognizable claims and dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim

1

upon which relief may be granted or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune

2

from such relief. See id. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Pro se pleadings must, however, be liberally

3

construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). To

4

state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements:

5

(1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and

6

(2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state

7

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

8

Sections 1915A and 1915(e)(2) accord judges the unusual power to pierce the veil

9

of the complaint’s factual allegations and dismiss as frivolous those claims whose factual
contentions are clearly baseless. See Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32 (1992).

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Examples are claims describing fantastic or delusional scenarios. See Neitzke v. Williams,

12

490 U.S. 319, 328 (1989). To pierce the veil of the complaint’s factual allegations means

13

that a court is not bound, as it usually is when making a determination based solely on the

14

pleadings, to accept without question the truth of the plaintiff’s allegations. See Denton,

15

504 U.S. at 32. A finding of factual frivolousness is appropriate when the facts alleged

16

rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible, whether or not there are judicially

17

noticeable facts available to contradict them. See id. at 32-33.

18

The allegations that Reagan initiated a plan, which is currently administered by

19

California and a “Computer Company,” to surveil and harass plaintiff are clearly baseless,

20

irrational and wholly incredible. The complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as

21

frivolous under sections 1915A and 1915(e)(2). The Clerk shall enter judgment in favor of

22

defendants, and close the file.

23

IT IS SO ORDERED.

24

14
Dated: June ___, 2018

_________________________
RICHARD SEEBORG
United States District Judge

25
26
27

ORDER OF DISMISSAL
CASE NO. 18-cv-01556-RS

28
2