Phelps v. Oakland Riders et al

Filing 10

ORDER RE IFP APPLICATION AND DISMISSAL. Signed by Judge James Donato on February 7, 2024. (jdlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/7/2024)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

BRIGGETT C PHELPS,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 24-cv-00571-JD
ORDER RE IFP APPLICATION AND
DISMISSAL

v.
OAKLAND RIDERS, et al.,
Defendants.

12
13

Pro se plaintiff Briggett Phelps has asked to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in her lawsuit

14

against the Oakland Riders, Oakland Police Department, Novato Police Department, Bar

15

Association, the Clerk who assisted her on January 9, 2024, and the Courts. See Dkt. Nos. 1 & 2.

16

She has also filed a Notice attaching the programs from a memorial service held in December for

17

another individual. Dkt. No. 9.

18

Although Phelps’ financial condition excuses payment of the court’s filing fees, the case is

19

dismissed because the complaint fails to state a plausible legal claim. See Nordin v. Scott, No.

20

3:21-CV-04717-JD, 2021 WL 4710697, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 8, 2021), aff’d, No. 22-15816, 2023

21

WL 4418595 (9th Cir. July 10, 2023) (“The Court may ‘at any time’ dismiss an IFP complaint that

22

fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted.”) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)).

23

Even when read with the liberality afforded pro se litigants, the complaint is difficult to

24

understand. The civil cover sheet lists a cause of action for “24hr harassment from law

25

enforcement” via “GPS.” Dkt. No. 1-1. However, the complaint itself alleges that the courts are

26

improperly shielding a police officer from liability and demands that the Court “pick up the 2

27

wrongfully dropped cases.” Dkt. No. 1 at ECF pp. 3, 7. It also alleges discrimination and

28

mistreatment by court staff. Id. at ECF pp. 5, 7.

1

To the extent intelligible, these allegations fail to state a cognizable legal claim. The

2

claims related to 24-hour police surveillance are frivolous and consequently dismissed. See

3

Dominguez v. Masons, No. 18-CV-02950-JD, 2018 WL 3344401, at *1 (N.D. Cal. July 9, 2018).

4

For the request to reopen prior cases, see Dkt. No. 1 at ECF p. 7, a similar complaint filed last year

5

against OPD, NPD, and District Clerks was dismissed, and judgment was entered against Phelps.

6

See Phelps v. Novato Police Dep’t, No. 23-cv-05305-SI (N.D. Cal. Nov. 28, 2023) (Dkt. Nos. 8 &

7

11). Phelps may not collaterally attack prior adverse judgments by filing a new lawsuit based on

8

the same factual allegations. See Taylor v. Gipson, No. 21-CV-00055-JD, 2021 WL 3565425, at

9

*3 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 11, 2021).

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

For the allegations of impropriety in the court system, judges and court staff are immune

11

from liability for judicial actions taken within the scope of their jurisdiction, and the complaint is

12

devoid of allegations that might make the claims against court personnel plausible. See Mullis v.

13

U.S. Bankruptcy Court for Dist. of Nevada, 828 F.2d 1385, 1390 (9th Cir. 1987); Drevaleva v.

14

Beeler, No. 20-CV-00642-JD, 2020 WL 9422378, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 27, 2020).

15

Phelps may file an amended complaint by March 1, 2024. Failure to amend by the

16

deadline will result in dismissal and an entry of judgment against Phelps under Rule 41(b).

17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 7, 2024

19
20
JAMES DONATO
United States District Judge

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2