Harper v. US et al

Filing 3

ORDER Granting 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. It is hereby ordered that the complaint is dismissed. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. Signed by Judge William Q. Hayes on 08/14/2017. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(ajs)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MONTOREY DANYELL HARPER, Military Leader UNI Star General Montorey LLC, 12 13 v. US; NATO; and, UN, CASE NO. 17cv1586-WQH-KSC ORDER Plaintiff, 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Defendants. HAYES, Judge: On August 8, 2017, Plaintiff Montorey Danyell Harper initiated this action by filing a complaint and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF Nos. 1, 2). I. Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis All parties instituting a civil action, suit, or proceeding in a district court of the United States, other than a petition for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of $400.00. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); CivLR 4.5. An action may proceed despite a party’s failure to pay only if the party is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). “To proceed in forma pauperis is a privilege not a right.” Smart v. Heinze, 347 F.2d 114, 116 (9th Cir. 1965). After considering Plaintiff’s motion and affidavit, the Court determines that Plaintiff cannot afford to pay the filing fee in this case and is eligible to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). -1- 17cv1586-WQH-KSC 1 II. Initial Screening of the Complaint 2 A complaint filed by any person proceeding in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 3 U.S.C. § 1915(a) is also subject to mandatory review and sua sponte dismissal to the 4 extent it “is frivolous or malicious; fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; 5 or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. 6 § 1915(e)(2)(B); see Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 7 The standard used to evaluate whether a complaint states a claim is a liberal one, 8 particularly when the action has been filed pro se. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 9 106 (1976). However, even a “liberal interpretation . . . may not supply elements of the 10 claim that were not initially pled.” Ivey v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Alaska, 673 11 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). “[P]ro se litigants are bound by the rules of procedure.” 12 Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 54 (9th Cir. 1995). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 13 provides that “[a] pleading that states a claim for relief must contain ... a short and plain 14 statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief....” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 8(a)(2). “[A] plaintiff’s obligation to provide the grounds of his entitlement to relief 16 requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements 17 of a cause of action will not do.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) 18 (quotation omitted). 19 The complaint states in part, that “SHAKERS ARE LYERS AND LITTER ALL 20 SOCIETIES” and 21 22 23 24 25 THIS IS THE GOVERNMENT CLAIM FOR DISABILITY AND CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES AS THES PEOPLE ARE ODD IN SOCIETY AND APPEAR AS CRIMINALS BUT ARE. THIS MAENS THAT THEY WANT YOU TO ONLY ASSUME BUT TO THEN BE ASSUALTED BY THE REAL TRUE NATURE OF WHO THEY ARE AND IT IS HELL. THIS MEANS IT IS HELL TO LIVE IN THE US AND IT IS HELL TO LIVE IN THE WORLDS SOCIETIES. SO, THIS IS SERIOUS AND ON PURPOSE AND INTENTIONAL. THEREFORE, THE PLAINTIFF DEMANDS AN UNLIMITED AMOUNT. 26 (ECF No. 1). 27 The Court has reviewed the allegations of the complaint and cannot determine 28 under what legal theory Plaintiff’s complaint arises. The Court concludes that the -2- 17cv1586-WQH-KSC 1 allegations of the complaint are vague and lack an arguable basis in law or fact. 2 Plaintiff fails to allege “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to 3 relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662. 678 (2009) 4 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). The complaint is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 5 § 1915(e)(2)(B)(I). 6 IV. Conclusion 7 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis 8 is GRANTED. (ECF No. 2). 9 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the complaint is dismissed. (ECF No. 1). The 10 Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. 11 DATED: August 14, 2017 12 13 WILLIAM Q. HAYES United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -3- 17cv1586-WQH-KSC

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?