Brosten v. Ryan et al

Filing 4

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. ; denying 1 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. IT IS SO ORDERED that Brostens request to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 1) under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) be DENIED this action shall be DISMISSED. Signed by Judge Brian Morris on 12/7/2015. (SLL, ) Modified on 12/7/2015 Cpy mailed to pro se Pla thru U.S. Mail w/docket sheet(ELL, ).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
GREAT FALLS DIVISION

CV 15-69-BU-BMM

ERIC BROSTEN,
Plaintiff,
vs.

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE
JUDGE’S FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS

PAUL RYAN; U.S. Rep. WISCONSIN
JOHN BOEHNER; U.S. Rep. OHIO
JOHN BOEHNER; HILLARY
CLINTON; STEVE DAINES; and
RYAN ZINKE,
Defendants.

Plaintiff Eric Brosten filed a pleading in this action, together with his
application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1).
Brosten is proceeding pro se. Brosten requests that the Court intervene “to set this
nation on a more secure future.” (Doc. 2 at 1.) Brosten purports to advance claims
under 42 U.S.C. § 1985. Brosten also cites to the statutory definition of the
criminal offense of treason at 18 U.S.C. § 2381.
Brosten alleges political terrorism and requests that the Court issue an order
“to the Secret Terrorist phone tapping court,” and require that one of the political
terrorist be put on the phone tapping list. (Doc. 2 at 3.) Brosten also requests

1

protection from the Secret Service. Brosten further requests that the Court issue an
order seizing social security funds for his medical benefits. Brosten also expresses
concerns about government spending, the United States presidential election, and
the alleged misguided focus of military power.
United States Magistrate Judge Jeremiah Lynch entered Findings and
Recommendations in this matter on November 16, 2015. (Doc. 3.) Judge Lynch
recommended that the Court dismiss the pleading as frivolous as it “lacks any basis
in fact or in law.” (Doc. 3 at 9.) The Court determined that the pleading cannot be
cured by amendment. Id. Brosten filed no objections to Judge Lynch’s Findings
and Recommendations. When a party makes no objections, the Court need not
review de novo the proposed Findings and Recommendations. Thomas v. Arn, 474
U.S. 140, 149-52 (1986). This Court will review Judge Lynch’s Findings and
Recommendations, however, for clear error. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v.
Commodore Bus. Mach., Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981).
The Court possesses authority to deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis at
the outset if it appears from the face of the pleading that the action proves frivolous
or without merit. Minette v. Port of Seattle, 152 F.3d 1113, 1115 (9th Cir. 1998). A
pleading is frivolous when it presents no “arguable basis in law or fact.” Franklin
v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1255 (9th Cir. 1984). Brosten has presented no arguable
basis in law or fact. The Court may dismiss a pro se complaint without leave to

2

amend when “it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not
be cured by amendment.” Weilburg v. Shapiro, 488 F.3d 1202, 1205 (9th Cir.
2007). No basis exists for the Court to award Brosten the relief that he seeks. The
Court finds no error in Judge Lynch’s Findings and Recommendations, and adopts
them in full.
Accordingly, IT IS SO ORDERED that Brosten’s request to proceed in
forma pauperis (Doc. 1) under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) be DENIED this action
shall be DISMISSED.
DATED this 7th Day of December, 2015.

3