Jember v. County of Santa Clara et al

Filing 12

Interim Order re: 7 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; Report and Recommendation signed by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd on 7/13/2017. Objections due by 7/27/2017. (hrllc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/13/2017)

Download PDF
E-filed 7/13/2017 1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ASCHILEW JEMBER, Plaintiff, 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 v. COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, et al., Defendants. Case No.17-cv-03883-BLF (HRL) INTERIM ORDER RE: APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Re: Dkt. Nos. 1-7 12 Pro se plaintiff Aschilew Jember (“Jember”) sues Defendants Santa Clara County, Valley 13 Medical Hospital, and fifteen individuals. Dkt. No. 1. Jember has applied for leave to proceed in 14 forma pauperis (“IFP”) and has declined magistrate judge jurisdiction. Dkt. Nos. 7, 9. For the 15 reasons explained below, the undersigned orders Jember to file a completed IFP application and 16 recommends that the newly assigned district judge dismiss his complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 17 Section 1915(e). 18 A court may grant an application to proceed in forma pauperis and permit a plaintiff to 19 prosecute a suit in federal court without prepayment of the filing fees if the court determines that 20 the applicant cannot pay such fees. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). The court, however, is under a 21 continuing duty to dismiss a case filed without prepayment of the filing fee whenever it 22 determines that the action is “frivolous or malicious; [or] fails to state a claim on which relief may 23 be granted[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Neitzke v. Williams, 409 U.S. 319, 324 (1989). 24 Complaints must also comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which 25 “requires each averment of a pleading to be simple, concise, and direct, stating which defendant is 26 liable to the plaintiff for which wrong.” Chambers v. Los Angeles County, 474 F. App’x 576 (9th 27 Cir. 2012) (citing McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 1996)). 28 The IFP application filed by Jember is incomplete. Jember does not state whether he owns 1 an automobile, whether he has a bank account, or whether he owns any cash. He also left the 2 fields for his monthly expenses and other debts blank. As a result, the undersigned cannot 3 determine whether Jember is eligible to proceed IFP and orders him to re-submit a completed 4 application. 5 In his complaint, Jember alleges that Defendants have financed and engaged in a “systematic murder plot against Jember for 22 years.” Dkt. No. 1. Though the complaint is 7 mostly unclear, it includes allegations that “bribed racist judges” concealed information about a 8 systematic murder plot involving Plaintiff’s forced injection with infectious diseases; that “Board 9 defendants and the County declared a pilot program for murder;” and that Defendants injected 10 Plaintiff with drugs to cause psychosis in attempt to conceal their murder plot. Id. Jember sues 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 6 Defendants for retaliation, illegal discrimination, defamation, criminal conspiracy, civil rights 12 violations, and other claims. Id. He seeks hundreds of millions of dollars in damages. Id. 13 Jember’s complaint is over three hundred pages long and contains mostly repetitive 14 allegations, many of which are implausible (e.g., that Jember was injected with euthanasia drugs), 15 and most of which are difficult to parse. Ultimately, it is impossible to discern from plaintiff's 16 complaint the essential details of the events that triggered his lawsuit. Plaintiff has failed to set 17 forth "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief" as 18 required by Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Accordingly, the undersigned 19 recommends that the district judge dismiss his complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915. The 20 undersigned further recommends that the court grant Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint 21 that complies with Rule 8. 22 23 24 25 Any party may serve and file objections to this Report and Recommendation within fourteen days after being served. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 7/13/2017 26 27 HOWARD R. LLOYD United States Magistrate Judge 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?