Rice v. USA et al

Filing 7

ORDER granting 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. The Court finds that the Amended Complaint is frivolous and, as such, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. This action is dismissed with prejudice. Signed by Judge Larry Alan Burns on 3/26/12. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(kaj)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GREGORY M. RICE, CASE NO. 10-CV-1829-LAB-RBB 12 ORDER DISMISSING CASE 13 Plaintiff, vs. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., 14 Defendant. 15 Pending before the Court is Mr. Rice’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 16 17 I. IFP Motion 18 All parties instituting a civil action in a district court of the United States, except for 19 habeas petitioners, must pay a filing fee of $350. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). A party is 20 excused from paying the fee, however, if the Court grants leave to proceed IFP pursuant to 21 28 U.S.C. 1915(a). Mr. Rice claims that he is a freelance journalist who recently completed 22 a book on the issues raised by his lawsuit. He states no income from this work, however, 23 and instead claims he receives $220 per month in “General Relief.” He also claims to have 24 no checking account, no savings account, and no assets of value. His Motion to Proceed 25 In Forma Pauperis is therefore GRANTED. 26 II. Initial Screening 27 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the Court must screen each civil action commenced 28 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) and dismiss the action if the Court finds it is frivolous or -1- 1 malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief 2 from an immune defendant. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 45 3 (9th Cir. 2001) (“[T]he provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) are not limited to prisoners.”); 4 Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) “not 5 only permits but requires” the court to sua sponte dismiss an IFP complaint that fails to state 6 a claim). 7 Mr. Rice’s original complaint was a mere paragraph of grievances, accompanied by 8 approximately 20 seemingly unrelated pages that it appears he printed off of the internet. 9 His amended complaint is better, but still woefully inadequate. The Court has no clear sense 10 of what Mr. Rice’s claims are about, or why he has named all of the Defendants that he has. 11 The Court therefore finds that it does not pass the screening required by § 1915(e)(2)(B). 12 It is frivolous and, as such, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 13 This action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 14 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: March 26, 2012 17 18 HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 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?