Calhoun v. San Diego County et al

Filing 4

ORDER denying as moot Plaintiff's 2 Motion to Appoint Counsel; granting Plaintiff's 3 Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis. Because it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by amendment, Court dismisses w/ prejudice the complaint.. Signed by Judge Irma E. Gonzalez on 3/3/2010. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(jah) (kaj).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 BRUCE DERRICK CALHOUN, vs. Plaintiff, CASE NO. 10cv0441-IEG(BLM) Order Granting Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis; Dismissing Complaint; Denying as Moot Motion for Appointment of Counsel

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN DIEGO COUNTY AND ALL ITS CORRUPT PARTNERS; FBI; NSA; OSI; SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION; JUDGE GALLO; JUDGE SUBRAL; CHASE BANK; COASTAL HOTELS; BRENDON HOTEL; PORTLAND, OREGON; GREYHOUND; W. SAMUEL HAMRICK, JR., CLERK OF COURT; EDWARD J. SCHWARTZ FEDERAL BUILDING, 4TH FLOOR, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA; JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, 5TH FLOOR, EDWARD J. SCHWARTZ FEDERAL BUILDING; MTS 901 BUS; 934 MTS BUS; NAVAL BASE CORONADO; NAVAL AMPHIBIUS BASE CORONADO; CORONADO POLICE DEPARTMENT, Defendants.

Plaintiff Bruce Derrick Calhoun, proceeding pro se, has filed a Complaint along with a motion to proceed in forma pauperis and a motion for appointment of counsel. Upon review, the Court finds Plaintiff is a poor person entitled to proceed without prepayment of fees pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, and GRANTS his motion to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court is obligated to review a complaint filed in forma pauperis and must sua sponte -110cv441

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

dismiss the action if it determines the complaint is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). After careful review, the Court finds that Plaintiff's complaint is frivolous and void of any plausible claims for relief. Plaintiff seeks damages of $600 million from a variety of individuals, judges, federal agencies, and physical locations. Plaintiff claims Defendants attempted to murder him on February 25 and 26, 2010, and provides no additional factual allegations. These allegations are frivolous and do not state colorable legal claims. McKeever v. Block, 932 F.2d 795, 798 (9th Cir. 1991) (complaint is frivolous and properly dismissed sua sponte if the facts alleged are "fanciful" or describe "delusional scenarios.") The Court notes Plaintiff's allegations are similar to those set forth in his previously filed complaints in this Court. Because "it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by amendment," the Court DISMISSES the complaint with prejudice. Franklin v. Murphy, 245 F.2d 1221, 1228 n.9 (9th Cir. 1984). The Court DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiff's Request for Appointment of Counsel. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: March 3, 2010 IRMA E. GONZALEZ, Chief Judge United States District Court

-2-

10cv441