Wallach Lorretz v. U.S.A. Government

Filing 7

ORDER denying Renewed Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, dismissing First Amended Complaint without prejudice for Failure to State a Claim. Plaintiff has thirty (30) days to submit a Second Amended Complaint. Signed by Judge Anthony J. Battaglia on 5/31/12.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(cge)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 Diana Lee Wallach Lorretz, 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 ) ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) ) U.S.A. Government ) includes FBI, SSA, Surgeon General, Dept. of ) Defense, Homeland Security, United States ) Coast Guard, All the Presidents in My ) Lifetime since Harry S. Truman Started It and ) Hired Nazis to Watch and Dept. of Ed., Law ) Enforcement, Dept. of State, ) ) Defendants. ) ) Civil No. 12cv0944 AJB Order Denying Renewed Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, Dismissing First Amended Complaint for Failure to State a Claim [Doc. No. 5] 19 20 On April 17, 2012, the Plaintiff, Diana Lee Wallach Lorretz, a non-prisoner proceeding pro se, 21 commenced this action against the United States Government, including the Federal Bureau of 22 Investigation (“FBI”), Social Security Administration (“SSA”), Surgeon General, Department of 23 Defense, Homeland Security, United States Coast Guard, all of the Presidents in Plaintiff’s lifetime since 24 Harry S. Truman started it and hired Nazis to watch and Department of Education, Law Enforcement, 25 and the Department of State. Plaintiff moved to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 26 U.S.C. § 1915(a) and argued that an appointment of counsel is required pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 27 1915(e)(1). On April 18, 2012, this Court denied Plaintiff’s motions and dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint 28 for failure to state a claim. On April 30, 2012, the Plaintiff filed her First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). 1 12cv944 1 For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds Plaintiff's renewed motion to proceed IFP insufficient 2 and sua sponte DISMISSES Plaintiff’s FAC for failure to state a claim. 3 I. 4 Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis When a plaintiff moves to proceed IFP, the court first “grants or denies IFP status based on the 5 plaintiff's financial resources alone and then independently determines whether to dismiss the com- 6 plaint” pursuant to § 1915(e)(2). Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1226 n.5 (9th Cir. 1984). Plaintiff 7 originally submitted an affidavit in support of the IFP motion indicating that she was unemployed, she 8 received $952 per month in Social Security Survivor benefits, and had a checking account with $3000 9 plus dollars and a savings account with $200 plus dollars. Thus, this Court found that Plaintiff did not 10 meet the § 1915(a) requirements and denied Plaintiff's motion to proceed IFP. 11 In Plaintiff’s FAC she includes a sentence that indicates her financial status has changed to $1 in 12 her savings and $1 in her checking. Plaintiff has failed to submit an affidavit which includes a statement 13 of all assets as required by § 1915(a). Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff does not meets the § 14 1915(a) requirements and DENIES Plaintiff's motion to proceed IFP. 15 II. Sua Sponte Dismissal for Failure to State a Claim 16 The FAC does not state a specific claim on which relief may be granted. A court may dismiss 17 the case at any time if it determines the plaintiff failed to state a claim on which relief may be granted 18 pursuant to § 1915(e)(2). Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998). “A plaintiff must 19 allege facts, not simply conclusions, that show that an individual was personally involved in the 20 deprivation of his civil rights.” Id. A court will deny any motion that fails to present a legal and factual 21 basis. Id. 22 In Plaintiff’s original Complaint she failed to state facts against each defendant who allegedly 23 violated her rights and she refused to provide the facts supporting her claims at that time. As a result, 24 this Court dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint for failure to state a claim. In the FAC, the Plaintiff asked for 25 relief from the United States Government in the amount of twelve billion dollars. In the Complaint 26 Plaintiff alleges, among other things, that defendants “use drugs and put them into plaintiff” and publish 27 fictional records and books about her. Pl.’s Am. Compl. 1, Doc. No. 5. The FAC also contends that the 28 FBI “tell[s] plaintiff where to go” and that newspapers report her “contacts.” Id. at 2. The FAC once 2 12cv944 1 again fails to state a cognizable claim on which relief can be granted. Plaintiff’s vague allegations that 2 Defendants tell her where to go, put drugs in her, and write fictional records and books about her fails to 3 allege specific constitutional or civil rights violations. As a result, Plaintiff has not presented a sufficient 4 basis for a cognizable claim on which relief may be granted. Pursuant to § 1915(e)(2), the Court 5 DISMISSES the Complaint without prejudice for failure to state a claim. 6 III. 7 Conclusion For the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s renewed motion to proceed IFP 8 and DISMISSES the FAC without prejudice for failure to state a claim. The Plaintiff has thirty (30) 9 days to submit a Second Amended Complaint correcting the deficiencies noted herein. Failure to do so 10 11 will result in the Court’s dismissal of this case. IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 13 DATED: May 31, 2012 14 15 Hon. Anthony J. Battaglia U.S. District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 K:\COMMON\BATTAGLI\DJ CASES\2 Orders to be filed\12cv944.Order.Dismiss.SAC.wpd 12cv944

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?