Ivie v. United States of America et al

Filing 3

ORDER denying 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis, ORDER of Dismissal. The complaint is dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk is directed to close the docket. Signed by Judge Larry Alan Burns on 2/13/15. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(kas)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CHARLES E. IVIE,

12

CASE NO. 15cv266-LAB (NLS)
Plaintiff(s),

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS;
AND

vs.
13
14

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Defendant(s).

15
16
17

On February 9, 2015, Plaintiff Charles Ivie, proceeding pro se, filed his complaint

18

along with a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). To prepare the IFP motion, it

19

appears Ivie typed questions for an IFP form and hand-wrote his answers on them. The

20

handwriting is mostly illegible. In addition, Ivie has given contradictory answers to at least

21

one question; for example, to question 3, asking whether he had any cash, he checked both

22

yes and no, then wrote something that looks like “$300 useless, can’t name value.” Leave

23

to proceed IFP is DENIED.

24

The caption identifies various National Forest Service officers as Defendants, as well

25

as the Department of Justice and various other federal agencies and officers, and all courts

26

and magistrates. The complaint begins with two typewritten pages in all capital letters. Ivie

27

is protesting a citation he received while on the Noble Canyon trail (located in the Cleveland

28

National Forest), for having an unleashed law at a developed recreational site. Ivie argues

-1-

15cv266

1

there are no leash laws in national forests. But see 36 C.F.R. §§ 2.15(2), 261.16(j). The

2

complaint is replete with insults and cursing, directed primarily at towards the officers he

3

holds responsible, and the government in general. It is clear he is of the opinion that he had

4

the right to do what he was doing, and has no intention of obeying leash laws or public lands

5

regulations.

6

The first two pages are followed by a partially-legible handwritten page, and this is

7

followed by three pages hand-annotated copies of the violation notices and an envelope.

8

The notices show Ivie was cited on January 17, 2013, and the fine was $50.00. At the top

9

of the last page, Ivie has written a demand for $30,000, for fraudulent filing (apparently

10

referring to the violation notices).

11

Obviously, Ivie thinks the officers should not have cited him. But the remedy for this

12

was for him to appear and defend against the citation, not to sue the officers and various

13

other people and agencies. In United States v. Barley, 405 F. Supp. 2d 1121 (N.D.Cal.,

14

2005), for example, visitors to a national park successfully contested citations for off-leash

15

dog walking on the grounds that the regulations then in place had not been properly noticed

16

or promulgated.

17

No statute or law authorizes this suit, and it is also clear that most if not all of the

18

Defendants are either immune or else have nothing to do with Ivie’s claims. The complaint

19

is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Clerk is directed to close the docket.

20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21

DATED: February 13, 2015

22
23

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS
United States District Judge

24
25
26
27
28
-2-

15cv266