Newcomb Taysom v. O'bama et al

Filing 5

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER denying 1 APPLICATION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; dismissing 2 Complaint. 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. 4:13-cv-00451-BLW
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER

BARACK OBAMA, et al.,
Defendants.

Plaintiff Nicola Jo Newcomb-Taysom filed an Application for Leave to Proceed in
forma pauperis (Dkt. 1) on October 18, 2013. 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 October 21, 2013. 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,

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 1

cannot “pay or give security for the costs” and still be able to provide herself and
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 average monthly income and expenses. It is 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 several defendants, many who hold various
political offices at the state and federal level. These defendants range from the Mayor of
Pocatello to President Barack Obama, to church organizations, attorneys and various
other individuals. The Court must also note that Newcomb-Taysom brought a very
similar case to this Court about a year ago. That case was also dismissed.
Like her earlier case, the unlawful activity Plaintiff alleges in this case is as vast as
it is incomprehensible – the only difference is the number of named defendants and
claims in this case dwarfs those of the first case. The Complaint mostly charges various
defendants with treason, sedition, and other outlandish allegations..

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 2

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).
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

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

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 3

“‘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.
In this case, Plaintiff has filed clearly baseless claims that have no basis in law or
fact. Like her first complaint, the attempt of a private citizen to lump the President of the
United States, Mayor of Pocatello, and many others together in her own do-it-yourself
treason prosecution can be dismissed without further discussion. Far from providing a
basis for the disparate sampling of constitutional violations she alleges, Plaintiff’s
allegations strongly confirm that her Complaint warrants dismissal. Accordingly,
because 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.

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.
1

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

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 4

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED:
1.

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

2.

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

DATED: October 28, 2013

_________________________
B. Lynn Winmill
Chief Judge
United States District Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 5