Monaghan v. Fiddler et al

Filing 12


Download PDF
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

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?