Newcomb Taysom v. Blad et al

Filing 10

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER denying 1 APPLICATION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by Nicola Jo Newcomb Taysom; dismissing with prejudice 2 Complaint filed by Nicola Jo Newcomb Taysom. Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (cjm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

NICOLA JO NEWCOMB-TAYSOM,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 4:12-cv-00298-BLW
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER

BRIAN BLAD et al.,
Defendants.

Plaintiff Nicola Jo Newcomb-Taysom filed an Application for Leave to Proceed in
forma pauperis (Dkt. 1) on June 13, 2012. Plaintiff’s Complaint (Dkt. 2) was
conditionally filed on the same day pending the determination of her in forma pauperis
status. The case was reassigned to the undersigned on June 26, 2012. Having reviewed
the record, and otherwise being fully informed, the Court enters the following Order.
1.

Review of Plaintiff’s In Forma Pauperis Application
Pursuant to federal statute, “any court of the United States may authorize the

commencement, prosecution or defense of any suit, action or proceeding, civil or
criminal, . . . without prepayment of fees or security therefor.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1).
In order to qualify for in forma pauperis status, Plaintiff must submit an affidavit that
includes a statement of all assets she possesses and that she is unable to pay the fee
required. Id. An affidavit is sufficient if it states the plaintiff, because of her poverty,
cannot “pay or give security for the costs” and still be able to provide herself and

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 1

dependents “with necessities of life.” Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Numours & Co., 335 U.S.
331, 339 (1948). The affidavit must “state the facts as to affiant’s poverty with some
particularity, definiteness and certainty.” United States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 940
(9th Cir. 1981) (internal quotation omitted).
Here, Plaintiff filled out the application and submitted what appears to be a ledger
of her day by day income and expenses for approximately a month. It is somewhat
difficult to comprehend the ledger, but it seems to suggest that Plaintiff lives below the
poverty level. However, although Plaintiff has submitted material in this regard, the
Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis application is moot in light of the Court’s ruling below.
2.

Review of Plaintiff’s Complaint
A.

Background

Plaintiff has brought suit against 21 defendants, most of whom hold various
political offices at the state and federal level. These defendants range from the Mayor of
Pocatello to President Barack Obama. At least one defendant, Senator “Larry Crapo,”
does not exist. Likely, Plaintiff meant either former U.S. Senator Larry Craig or current
U.S. Senator Mike Crapo.
The unlawful activity Plaintiff alleges is as vast as it is incomprehensible. The
Complaint itself mostly charges various defendants with treason for “alliances” they have
formed with China and Russia, though she also alleges that Dave Hunt, the City of
Pocatello’s Transit Manager, “misuse[d] public funds.” Pl’s Cover Sheet at 10, Dkt. 2-1.
However, Plaintiff has also submitted letters alleging other sweeping constitutional

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 2

violations. These derive from a myriad of sources, including everything and anything
from state-sanctioned witchcraft to open-container alcohol sales. See Compl. at 1, Dkt. 2;
Letter from Niki Taysom at 1-2, Dkt. 8. These charges are linked, with no particular
explanation, to the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments, as well as to Art. I § 10 of the
Constitution. Other highlights of Plaintiff’s filings include a discussion integrating First
Amendment jurisprudence with the healing power of Christ’s “divine Priesthood
Authority” and a description of the ambitions of Secretary of State Hilary Clinton to
become the Antichrist. Letter from Niki Taysom at 3, Dkt. 9; Letter from Niki Taysom at
1-2, Dkt. 8. Claiming her concerns were ignored at a city council meeting in Pocatello,
Plaintiff now seeks relief for what she calls her constitutional claims in this Court.
B.

Legal Standard and Discussion

Once a complaint has been conditionally filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the
Court must conduct an initial review of the complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). The
Court must dismiss a complaint or any portion thereof if it: (1) is frivolous or malicious;
(2) fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief
from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i-iii).
The Ninth Circuit defines a claim as frivolous if “it is of little weight or importance:
having no basis in law or fact.” Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2005)
(internal citations and punctuation omitted); see Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 3233 (1992) (holding that sua sponte dismissal is appropriate for “clearly baseless” or
“delusional” claims).

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 3

Because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the complaint must be liberally construed
and she must be given the benefit of any doubt. See Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447
(9th Cir. 2000). Additionally, if the complaint can be saved by amendment, then Plaintiff
should be notified of the deficiencies and provided an opportunity to amend. See Jackson
v. Gray, 353 F.3d 750, 758 (9th Cir. 2003). However, as noted by the Supreme Court in
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, “[a] pleading that offer labels and conclusions or a formulaic recitation
of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (internal
citations omitted).1 The pleading standard in Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 requires more than
“‘naked assertion[s]’ devoid of ‘further factual enhancements.’” Id. (citing Bell Atlantic
Corp v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 557 (2007)). A complaint should be dismissed under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 if the factual allegations are not “plausible,” but merely
“conceivable.” Id. at 1951. A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads
factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant
acted in a manner that would render him liable for the misconduct alleged. Bell Atlantic
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556 (2007). The plausibility standard is not akin to a
“probability requirement,” but it asks more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has
acted unlawfully. Id.

1

Although the Iqbal Court was addressing pleading standards in the context of a Rule 12(b)(6)
motion, the Court finds that those standards also apply in the initial screening of a complaint
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A since Iqbal discusses the general pleading
standards of Rule 8, which apply in all civil actions.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 4

In this case, Plaintiff has filed a clearly baseless claim that has no basis in law or
fact. The attempt of a private citizen to lump the President of the United States and the
Mayor of Pocatello (along with a non-existent Senator) together in her own do-it-yourself
treason prosecution can be dismissed without further discussion. Even the most
tenuously rational of Plaintiff’s claims—that the City of Pocatello’s Transit Manager
somehow “misuse[d] public funds”—is nothing beyond a mere accusation that falls short
of the generous pleading standards of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Far from
providing a basis for the disparate sampling of constitutional violations she alleges,
Plaintiff’s extended descriptions of witchcraft and bizarre theological tangents strongly
confirm that her Complaint warrants dismissal. Accordingly, because it appears that
giving Plaintiff an opportunity to amend her Complaint would be futile,1 the Court shall
dismiss the Complaint as frivolous and for failure to state a claim upon which relief can
be granted.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED:
1.

Plaintiff’s Application for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. 1) is
DENIED.

2.

1

Plaintiff’s Complaint (Dkt. 2) is DISMISSED with prejudice in its entirety.

Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc).

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 5

DATED: July 25, 2012

_________________________
B. Lynn Winmill
Chief Judge
United States District Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 6