Rangel v. Pacheco et al
Filing
10
ORDER Dismissing Civil Action as Frivolous Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). The court Denies Plaintiff's 3 Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Denies as Moot 7 Motion for Leave to Appear, and certifies that an IFP appeal would not be taken in good faith pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). Signed by Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz on 7/31/2017. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service). (mxn)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
GABRIEL ANDREW RANGEL,
Booking No. 16173523,
vs.
14
16
ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL
ACTION AS FRIVOLOUS
PURSUANT TO
28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)
Plaintiff,
13
15
Case No.: 3:17-cv-00743-BTM-JLB
PACHECO, et al.,
Defendants.
17
18
GABRIEL ANDREW RANGEL (“Plaintiff”), while detained at the San Diego
19
County Jail (“SDCJ”) and proceeding pro se, has filed a 2-page Complaint drafted in the
20
form of a letter, claiming he is the target of “political assassina[tion]” by Defendants,
21
identified only as “Sheriff’s Officers” and “DDA’s of past and presen[t]” who have
22
connected his “biometric[] nano central nervous system” to “electric fields” and are
23
committing “neurocognitive … torture upon [his] person.” See ECF No. 1. Plaintiff further
24
claims he has been a “torture victim before birth” due to his “rare blood of double OO ODT
25
plus positive,” and his Apache Chiricahua descent, and he seeks injunctive relief from an
26
“appropriate federal agency” pursuant to the War Crimes Act, Federal Tort Claims Act,
27
“Alien Statu[t]e Tort Claim,” the “Embryonic Embryo Act,” the Geneva Convention, and
28
the “Law of England 186 (1789).” Id. at 1-2.
1
3:17-cv-00743-BTM-JLB
1
Plaintiff has not prepaid the $400 filing fee required to commence civil action
2
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a), nor has he filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis
3
(“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).
4
Plaintiff has, however, filed miscellaneous supplemental documents including a
5
Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 3) and a Motion for Leave to Appear (ECF
6
No. 7). In his Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Plaintiff repeats allegations that he is a
7
“human subject to a … program of savant talent,” and a “bio blood extraction victim” of
8
“radiation clandestine crystalline army sigma elite CIA 805th Chemical Corporation,” and
9
on that basis, he seeks “emergency release [from] incarceration” due to his torture through
10
“illegal securus technologies thermal heat mazer lazers,” employed by the Ku Klux Klan,
11
“Luminati,” and “Freemasons,” who together with “law enforcement officials, “murder …
12
Afro-American m[e]n and young virgin women as sacrifice every month for four years,”
13
“then Monday through Friday pass out double life sentences for [the] same offenses.” See
14
ECF No. 3 at 1-3.
15
I.
Discussion
16
Because Plaintiff has not paid the filing fees required to commence a civil action,
17
his case is subject to immediate dismissal on that basis alone. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a).
18
And while “a federal litigant who is too poor to pay court fees may proceed in forma
19
pauperis,” Coleman v. Tollefson, 135 S. Ct. 1759, 17621 (2015), Plaintiff does not seek
20
leave to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d
21
1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 2007).
22
Ordinarily, under these circumstances, the Court would grant Plaintiff leave to
23
submit a properly supported IFP Motion in order to proceed further. However, the Court
24
finds such leave unnecessary and unjustified in this case because a preliminary review of
25
Plaintiff’s Complaint, his Motion for Preliminary Injunction, and his other supplemental
26
documents reveal a suit that is patently frivolous. See Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25,
27
25-26 (1992). A pleading is “factual[ly] frivolous[]” if “the facts alleged rise to the level
28
of the irrational or the wholly incredible, whether or not there are judicially noticeable facts
2
3:17-cv-00743-BTM-JLB
1
available to contradict them.” Id.
2
“A court may screen a complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A … if, at the time
3
the plaintiff files the complaint, he is “incarcerated or detained in any facility [because he]
4
is accused of, convicted of, sentenced for, or adjudicated delinquent for, violations of
5
criminal law or the terms or conditions of parole, probation, pretrial release, or diversionary
6
program.” Olivas v. Nevada ex rel. Dept. of Corr., 856 F.3d 1281, 1284 (9th Cir. 2017)
7
(citing 28 U.S.C. § 1915(h), 1915A(c); 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(h)).
8
Section 1915A “mandates early review—‘before docketing [] or [] as soon as
9
practicable after docketing’—for all complaints ‘in which a prisoner seeks redress from a
10
governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.’” Chavez v. Robinson,
11
817 F.3d 1162, 1168 (9th Cir. 2016). The mandatory screening provisions of § 1915A
12
apply to all prisoners, no matter their fee status, who bring suit against a governmental
13
entity, officer, or employee. See, e.g. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 446-47 (9th Cir.
14
2000). “On review, the court shall … dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the
15
complaint,” if it “(1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may
16
be granted; or (2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.”
17
Olivas, 856 F.3d at 1283 (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)).
18
While it is difficult to discern any arguable legal basis for Plaintiff’s suit, it is clear
19
that his allegations of being a “vampire biotech super soldier” and an “underground clone
20
top shelf prime target of savant talent,” who is subject to nanotechnology torture” at the
21
hands of “DDAs” and unidentified SDCJ Sheriff’s Department officials, while rambling,
22
disjointed, and practically incoherent, are also “irrational” or “wholly incredible,” and
23
therefore, factually frivolous and subject to sua sponte dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
24
§ 1915A(b)(1). See Denton, 504 U.S. at 25-26; see also Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319,
25
324 (1989) (an action is frivolous if it lacks “an arguable basis in either law or fact.”).
26
Section 1915 gives courts “the unusual power to pierce the veil” of a Complaint like
27
Plaintiff’s and to “dismiss those claims whose factual contentions are clearly baseless.”
28
Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327; see also Athans v. Starbucks Coffee Co., No. CV-06-1841-PHX3
3:17-cv-00743-BTM-JLB
1
DGC, 2007 WL 1673883, at *2 (D. Ariz. June 11, 2007) (dismissing complaint presenting
2
a “fantastic and delusional scenario” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 in which Starbucks and
3
law enforcement were alleged to have conspired to conduct surveillance of Plaintiff in his
4
home, and administered drugs to him at various Starbucks stores in order to prevent him
5
from stalking and murdering women); Golden v. Clinton, No. C 94–0499 EFL, 1994 WL
6
118280, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 23, 1994) (dismissing as frivolous action involving various
7
private and public officials alleged to have conspired to control the plaintiff through
8
electronic and “telemetric” devices); Kierstead v. Suter, 903 F. Supp. 801, 802–03 (D.N.J.
9
1995) (dismissing as frivolous civil complaint alleging government had conducted various
10
biomedical studies on plaintiff and had kept her under constant surveillance); Adams v.
11
FBI, No. C 06–07321 CRB, 2007 WL 627912, at *1–2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 26, 2007)
12
(dismissing as frivolous complaint painting a “delusional portrait of extreme persecution”
13
involving hidden cameras in plaintiff’s home and having blood drawn while she was
14
rendered unconscious by a chemical substance).
15
If claims are classified as frivolous, “there is by definition no merit to the underlying
16
action and so no reason to grant leave to amend.” Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 n.8
17
(9th Cir. 2000) (en banc).
18
II.
Conclusion and Order
19
For the reasons discussed, the Court DISMISSES this civil action as frivolous
20
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary
21
Injunction and for Leave to Appear (ECF Nos. 3, 7) as moot, and CERTIFIES that an IFP
22
appeal would not be taken in good faith pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).
23
The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter a final judgment of dismissal and close the file.
24
IT IS SO ORDERED.
25
26
27
28
Dated: 7/31/17
_______________________________________
Hon. Barry Ted Moskowitz, Chief Judge
United States District Court
4
3:17-cv-00743-BTM-JLB
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?