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)

Download PDF
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

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?