Selden v. United States et al

Filing 6

ORDER DISMISSING 1 COMPLAINT AND ACTION: "Plaintiff's Complaint and action are DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b) & 1915(g). The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to close the file and should not return any further filings in this action to Plaintiff. IT IS SO ORDERED.". Signed by District JUDGE LESLIE E. KOBAYASHI on October 19, 2011. (bbb, )CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEParticipants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e-mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Participants not registered to receive electronic notifications were served by first class mail on the date of this docket entry

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
GLENN LEE SELDEN,

)
)
Plaintiff-Petitioner,
)
)
vs.
)
)
UNITED STATES, CIA, “6 $
)
145,” EPA, STATE OF FLORIDA, )
)
Respondents-Defendants. )
_____________________________ )

CIV. NO. 11-00621 LEK/KSC
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT
AND ACTION

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT AND ACTION
Pro se Plaintiff Glenn Lee Selden is incarcerated at
the Tomoka Correctional Institution, located in Daytona Beach,
Florida.
court.1

Plaintiff has submitted a document for filing with the
He has not, however, paid the filing fee or submitted an

in forma pauperis application.

Plaintiff is not a Hawaii inmate

and neither he nor this action have any discernible connection to
Hawaii.2
Pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”),
the court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners
seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer or
employee of a governmental entity.

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).

The

court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner

1

It
Plaintiff
complaint
Court has
2

is impossible to determine the nature of relief
seeks, or whether his filing is a civil rights
or a petition for writ of habeas corpus. The Clerk of
docketed it as a civil rights complaint.

Plaintiff does not appear on Hawaii’s criminal database,
http://hoohiki1.courts.state.hi.us/jud/Hoohiki/main.htm.

has raised claims that are legally “frivolous or malicious,” that
fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that
seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such
relief.

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1-2).

“Notwithstanding any filing

fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court
shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that
. . . the action or appeal . . . fails to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted.”

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

Plaintiff’s complaint is incomprehensible.

Plaintiff

names the United States, the C.I.A., “6 $ 145,” the EPA, and the
State of Florida as defendants and then simply lists numerous,
unconnected federal statutes, treatises, and cases.

Plaintiff

provides no facts and submits nothing that clarifies his claims
or the relief he is seeking.

Plaintiff’s Complaint is therefore

completely frivolous and appears unconnected with reality.

As

such, it is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) and § 1915
(e)(2)(B)(ii).

See Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir.

2001) (per curiam); Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 641 (9th
Cir. 1989) (stating that a claim that is totally incomprehensible
may be dismissed as frivolous as it is without an arguable basis
in law).
Further, Plaintiff is incarcerated in Florida,
Plaintiff’s claims likely arose in Florida, and Defendants are
presumably located in Florida.

Venue does not lie in Hawaii.

2

See 28 U.S.C. § 1391.

Claims that Plaintiff has against State of

Florida officials and others concerning actions that occurred in
Florida must necessarily be brought to the court that is best
able to address and remedy the alleged harm.

The interests of

justice are not served by transferring this action to a federal
court in Florida, because Plaintiff’s claims are clearly
frivolous and cannot be cured by amendment.

See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1412; see also Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126 (9th Cir.
2000) (en banc).
Moreover, a review of the federal courts database,
Pacer Case Locator, https://pcl.uscourts.gov., reveals Plaintiff
has had four civil actions in the United States federal courts
that were dismissed as frivolous or for failure to state a
claim.3

A prisoner may not bring a civil action or appeal a

civil judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 “if the prisoner has, on 3
or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any
facility, brought an action or appeal in a court of the United
States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous,
malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious
physical injury.”

28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); Tierney v. Kupers, 128

F.3d 1310, 1311 (9th Cir. 1997).

Plaintiff does not allege that

3

See, e.g., Civ. No. 1:2011-cv-00733 (D.C.D.C, ECF #10,
dismissing action for failure to state a claim); Civ. No. 6:2009cv-01834 (M.D. Fla., ECF #3, dismissing action as frivolous and
for failure to state a claim); Civ. No. 8:2009-cv-02207 (M.D.
Fla., ECF #6, dismissing action for failure to state a claim);
Civ. No. 4:2010-cv-00143 (N.D. Fla., ECF #48, dismissing action
as frivolous).
3

he is in imminent danger of serious physical injury and he has
not concurrently paid the filing fee.
Plaintiff’s Complaint and action are DISMISSED pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b) & 1915(g).

The Clerk of Court is

DIRECTED to close the file and should not return any further
filings in this action to Plaintiff.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, October 19, 2011.

/S/ Leslie E. Kobayashi
Leslie E. Kobayashi
United States District Judge

Selden v. United States, et al.; Civ. 11-00621 LEK/KSC; ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT AND
ACTION; psas\3 strikes Ords\dmp\2011\Selden 11-621 (friv & 1915(g))

4