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)
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?