Hunt v. U.S. Parole Commission

Filing 12

ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 6/12/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/12/2012)

1
2
3
4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7
8

TYRONE HUNT,
Plaintiff,

9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

14
15

ORDER GRANTING
APPLICATION TO
PROCEED IN FORMA
PAUPERIS AND
DISMISSING
COMPLAINT

v.
UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION,
Defendant.

12
13

No. C 12-2470 CW

________________________________/
Plaintiff Tyron Hunt files an application for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis (IFP).

The matter was decided on the

16
papers.

Having considered all of the papers filed by Plaintiff,

17
18
19
20
21

the Court grants the application to proceed IFP and dismisses the
complaint.
DISCUSSION
A court may authorize a plaintiff to prosecute an action in

22

federal court without prepayment of fees or security if the

23

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

24

pay such fees or provide such security.

See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

25
Plaintiff has submitted the required documentation, and it is
26
27
28

evident from his application that his assets and income are
insufficient to enable him to prosecute the action.

Accordingly,

1

the application to proceed without the payment of the filing fee

2

is granted.

3

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

4

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

5

complaint.

6

A court is under a continuing duty to dismiss a case

filed without the payment of the filing fee whenever it determines

7
that the action “(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to
8
9

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

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such

11

relief."

12

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

13

rather an exercise of the court's discretion under the IFP

14

statute, the dismissal does not prejudice the filing of a paid

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii).

Because a dismissal

15
complaint making the same allegations.

Denton v. Hernandez, 504

16
U.S. 25, 32 (1992).
17
18

Plaintiff appears to allege that, because the United States

19

Parole Commission is not mentioned in the United States

20

Constitution, its authority to incarcerate or rehabilitate a

21

person violates the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution.

22

on this allegation, Plaintiff seeks the abolishment of the Parole

23

Based

Commission and one million dollars in punitive and monetary

24
damages.
25
26
27
28

Even construed liberally, Plaintiff's allegation fails to
2

1

state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

2

amendment would be futile.

3

Furthermore,

without leave to amend.

Therefore, the complaint is dismissed

4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6
7
8

Dated: 6/12/2012
CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3