Monaghan v. Fiddler et al

Filing 12

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 10/19/2011. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/19/2011)

1
2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4
5

ANDREW ST. LEDGER MONAGHAN, III,

6
7
8

No. C 11-3278 CW

Plaintiff,
v.
LARRY P FIDDLER, ALLEN JACKSON, and
RICKY KYLE,

9
Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING
PLAINTIFF'S
APPLICATION TO
PROCEED IN FORMA
PAUPERIS AND
DISMISSING
COMPLAINT

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
/
11
12
13
14

Plaintiff Andrew St. Ledger Monaghan, III, files an

15

application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP).

16

matter was decided on the papers.

17

papers filed by Plaintiff, the Court GRANTS the application to

18

proceed IFP and dismisses the complaint.

19
20

The

Having considered all of the

DISCUSSION
A court may authorize a plaintiff to prosecute an action in

21

federal court without prepayment of fees or security if the

22

plaintiff submits an affidavit showing that he or she is unable to

23

pay such fees or provide such security.

24

Plaintiff has submitted the required documentation, and it is

25

evident from his application that his assets and income are

26

insufficient to enable him to prosecute the action.

27

his application to proceed without the payment of the filing fee is

28

GRANTED.

See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

Accordingly,

1

The Court’s grant of Plaintiff's application to proceed IFP,

2

however, does not mean that he may continue to prosecute his

3

complaint.

4

filed without the payment of the filing fee whenever it determines

5

that the action “(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state

6

a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary

7

relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief."

8

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii).

9

§ 1915(e)(2)(B) is not a dismissal on the merits, but rather an

A court is under a continuing duty to dismiss a case

28

Because a dismissal pursuant to

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

exercise of the court's discretion under the IFP statute, the

11

dismissal does not prejudice the filing of a paid complaint making

12

the same allegations.

Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32 (1992).

13

Plaintiff alleges that he was a witness to a murder in Sherman

14

Oaks, California, that the wrong person was charged with the crime,

15

and that he was not allowed to testify at the trial to exonerate

16

the defendant, who was wrongly convicted.

17

Los Angeles, California.

18

in the Central District of California.

19

The trial took place in

Sherman Oaks and Los Angeles are located

Plaintiff sues the trial court judge, a sheriff's officer and

20

the prosecutor for having him improperly removed from the

21

courtroom.

22

against the same Defendants in the United States District Court for

23

the Central District of California, case number C 09-5698 DOC-E,

24

which was dismissed without prejudice on January 25, 2010.

25

February 19, 2010, Plaintiff filed an appeal in the Ninth Circuit,

26

which was dismissed for failure to prosecute on April 14, 2010.

27

Plaintiff also filed a case against Defendants in the Eastern

28

Plaintiff also indicates that he brought the same case

2

On

1

District of Pennsylvania, case number 10-cv-2834-JF.

2

voluntarily dismissed that case.

3

He apparently

Plaintiff may not keep filing the same lawsuit against the

4

same Defendants in different venues.

5

dismissed as duplicative of the previous cases Plaintiff filed.

6

Furthermore, because the events which gave rise to this action and

7

the parties involved reside in the Central District of California,

8

venue is improper in the Northern District.

9

§ 1391(b).

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Therefore, this case is

See 28 U.S.C.

Therefore this complaint is dismissed.

11

CONCLUSION

12

For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff's application to

13

proceed IFP is GRANTED and his complaint is DISMISSED without

14

prejudice to re-filing in federal court with the full filing fee.

15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17
18

Dated: 10/19/2011
CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

2
3
MONAGHAN et al,

Case Number: CV11-03278 CW

4
Plaintiff,

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

5
v.
6
FIDDLER et al,
7
Defendant.
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12

/

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District Court,
Northern District of California.
That on October 19, 2011, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said
copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said
envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle located
in the Clerk's office.

13
14

16

Andrew St. Ledger Monaghan
503 Olympic Boulevard
Santa Monica, CA 90401

17

Dated: October 19, 2011

15

18

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk
By: Nikki Riley, Deputy Clerk

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

4