Busto v. Everything et al
Filing
4
Order for Reassignment to District Judge; REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re #1 Complaint; Order granting #2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by C. M. Busto. Objections due by 5/17/2021.Signed by Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi on 4/26/2021. (vkdlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/26/2021)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
SAN JOSE DIVISION
7
8
C. M. BUSTO,
Plaintiff,
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
Case No. 21-cv-02837-VKD
ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION
TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
v.
EVERYTHING, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER FOR REASSIGNMENT TO
DISTRICT JUDGE; REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION RE DISMISSAL
Re: Dkt. Nos. 1, 2
13
14
15
Presently before the Court is Chad Michael Busto’s application to proceed in forma
16
pauperis (“IFP”). A court may authorize the commencement of a civil action IFP if the court is
17
satisfied that the would-be litigant cannot pay the filing fees necessary to pursue the action.
18
28 U.S.C § 1915(a)(1). In evaluating an IFP application, the court should “gran[t] or den[y] IFP
19
status based on the applicant’s financial resources alone and then independently determin[e]
20
whether to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that it is frivolous.” Franklin v. Murphy, 745
21
F.2d 1221, 1226–27 n.5 (9th Cir. 1984), abrogated on other grounds by Neitzke v. Williams, 490
22
U.S. 319 (1989). A court may dismiss a case filed without the payment of the filing fee whenever
23
it determines that the action “(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief
24
may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such
25
relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii).
26
While Mr. Busto’s IFP application indicates that he has “Infinite” income from every
27
resource listed on the form, Mr. Busto also notes he possesses “An Infinite Amount of . . . Debt +
28
Expenses.” Dkt. No. 2. This Court grants Mr. Busto’s IFP application, but that does not mean
1
that he may proceed with this action. For the reasons discussed below, this Court recommends
2
that Mr. Busto’s complaint be dismissed.
3
Mr. Busto’s complaint indicates that he seeks to sue “Everything, Existence, Reality, Life,
4
The Universe, The Milky Way Galaxy, The Solar System, Planet Earth/United Nations, Interpol,
5
America/Joe Biden + Kamala Harris, All States/Minnesota, F.B.I., Minnesota/Governor/State
6
Troopers, Hennepin County Sheriff’s Office, Minneapolis City Hall/Mayor, Minneapolis Police
7
Dept., Every Tax Paying Citizen in America + People who were present at the scene!” for
8
“Identity Fraud, “False Claims,” “Predication upon Deception,” “Misdemeanor Conspiracy to
9
Commit Cover-up of the Murder of George Floyd by Reality.” Dkt. No. 1 at 1–2, ECF p.15. The
complaint asserts that the Minneapolis Chief of Police, the Minneapolis Police Department, the
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
Minneapolis Mayor, all American taxpayers, and all of Congress and “Presidential things” are
12
equally responsible for George Floyd’s death. Id. at ECF pp. 6–13. Mr. Busto takes issue with the
13
criminal justice system: “Because all of us are everything + everyone, every current conviction,
14
unless it convicts all 331 million of us for what America does, we convict fraudulently, unlawfully
15
+ unconstitutionally. Every inmate currently incarcerated is so under the guise of deception that
16
they were only one human when they are all reality itself, and are all around and in us.” Id. at
17
ECF p.10.
18
The complaint’s rambling and disparate allegations do not state a legally coherent theory
19
of liability. Although Mr. Busto points out that the Southern District of Texas granted his IFP
20
application in another action, id. at ECF p.13, that does not change this Court’s conclusion that
21
Mr. Busto’s present complaint does not allege facts demonstrating that he has a cognizable claim
22
for relief and that the complaint should be dismissed. Absent consent, however, a magistrate
23
judge has no authority to issue a dispositive order. 28 U.S.C. § 636; Williams v. King, 875 F.3d
24
500 (9th Cir. 2017). Ordinarily, the Court would recommend dismissal with leave to amend.
25
However, the allegations of the complaint demonstrate that this action is frivolous. Therefore, this
26
case shall be reassigned to a District Judge with the recommendation that the complaint be
27
dismissed without leave to amend.
28
Mr. Busto may file an objection to this Report and Recommendation. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72.
2
1
In view of the current COVID-19 public health emergency, this Court extends the deadline for
2
submitting objections to May 17, 2021.
3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
4
Dated: April 26, 2021
5
6
VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI
United States Magistrate Judge
7
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
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?