Hurt v. United States of America

Filing 22

ORDER dismissing complaint and denying IFP application. Signed by Judge Hamilton on 02/28/2013. (pjhlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/28/2013) (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/28/2013: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (nah, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6
7

TYRONE HURT,
Plaintiff,

8
v.

9

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT
AND DENYING IFP APPLICATION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

No. C 12-4096 PJH

Defendant.
_______________________________/

12
13

The complaint in this case was filed on August 2, 2012, along with an application to

14

proceed in forma pauperis. The court reviewed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e),

15

and determined that plaintiff “alleges no clear facts in support of his complaint, states no

16

legitimate basis for the court’s subject matter jurisdiction, and does not identify any

17

recognizable causes of action.” See Dkt. 8 (Aug. 23, 2012). As a result, the court

18

dismissed the complaint, but granted leave to amend. Specific instructions on how to

19

amend were provided in the dismissal order and a deadline of September 21, 2012 was

20

set.

21

Instead of filing an amended complaint, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal on

22

September 10, 2012. The appeal was dismissed, and the court afforded plaintiff one final

23

opportunity to amend his complaint in accordance with this court’s order of August 23,

24

2012.

25

On November 26, 2012, plaintiff filed what purports to be an “amendment to the

26

complaint.” The three-page, handwritten complaint is largely incomprehensible. To the

27

extent that the court can discern anything in the amended complaint, it appears that plaintiff

28

is “requesting a ruling” based on the pleadings as submitted, without alleging any additional

1

facts or identifying any causes of action, as was required by this court’s order of August 23,

2

2012. The court further notes that plaintiff has a history of filing frivolous actions. See Hurt

3

v. Social Security Admin., 544 F.3d 308, 310 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (“Hurt has brought numerous

4

meritless appeals - suits targeting institutions, people and inanimate objects - while asking

5

for sums of money dwarfing the size of the Federal Government's annual budget. Indeed,

6

since the start of 2006, Hurt has filed appeals in over seventy cases before this Court, none

7

of which had any chance of success”). The court finds that this case is equally meritless,

8

as plaintiff seeks $150,000,000.00 for unspecified violations of his rights under the Eighth

9

Amendment. Thus, plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice. The court also
agrees with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit that plaintiff’s filings show “an

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

especially abusive pattern, aimed at taking advantage of the IFP privilege.” Id.

12

Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED.

13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 28, 2013
______________________________
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2