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)

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