Urziceanu v. State of Nevada et al

Filing 10

RECOMMENDATION AND ORDER DISMISSING CASE. The Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 1 is DENIED and the matter is DISMISSED. Signed by Judge Donald W. Molloy on 11/22/2011. Mailed to Urziceanu. (TAG, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FILED

NOV 22 2011

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
HELENA DIVISION

MICHAEL CLAUDE URZICEANU,

PATR~E.OUFFY.CLERK

By oePIJTY CLERK. MISSOUlA

Cause No. CV 11-00047-H-DWM-RKS

Plaintiff,
RECOMMENDATION AND ORDER
TO DENY IFP AND DISMISS

vs.
STATE OF NEVADA, et aI.,
Defendant.

Mr. Urziceanu moved to proceed in forma pauperis (C.D. I) and lodged a

complaint on September 7, 2011. C.D.2. Mr. Urziceanu's complaint contained
many deficiencies, including a lack of personal jurisdiction, so he was permitted to
file an amended complaint. C.D.5. Mr. Urziceanu filed an amended complaint on
November 8, 2011. C.D. 8. Mr. Urziceanu's motion to proceed in forma pauperis
should be denied and his amended complaint should be dismissed for lack of
personal jurisdiction.

I.

Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis
Indigent litigants may proceed in forma pauperis upon completion of a

proper affidavit of indigency. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). However, the court has broad
discretion in denying an application to proceed in forma pauperis. Weller v.
Page lof 5

Dickson, 314 F.2d 598 (9th Cir. 1963), cert. denied, 375 U.S. 845, 84 S.Ct. 97,11
L.Ed.2d 72 (1963). "A district court may deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis
at the outset ifit appears from the face ofthe proposed complaint that the action is
frivolous or without merit." Tripati v. First Nat'l Bank & Trust, 821 F.2d 1368,
1370 (9th Cir. 1987). "[T]he court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court
determines that the action or appeal is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant
who is immune from such relief." 28 U.S.c. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Mr. Urziceanu's
motion to proceed in forma pauperis should be denied because personal
jurisdiction does not exist over these defendants and he thus fails to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Williams v, Fulton

County Jail, 575 F.Supp. 306, 308 (D.C.!I!. 1983)(IFP may be denied for lack of
personal jurisdiction).
II.

Status

Mr. Urziceanu's original complaint named several individuals and
government entities from Nevada and sought a review of a misdemeanor
conviction (apparently out ofNevada), a review of his motion for return of
property, appointment of counsel, and any reliefto which he was entitled. C.D. 2.
Mr. Urziceanu named Jason Marks, Deputy County Attorney in Missoula, the
Page 2 of 5

County of Missoula, the State of Montana, and the Missoula County Sheriffs
Department as Defendants in his motion to proceed in forma pauperis. C.D. 1.
Montana's personaljlJTisdiction laws were explained to Mr. Urziceanu and he was
told his complaint would be dismissed ifhe did not prove personal jurisdiction lies
over his claim and the named defendants. C.D.5.
Mr. Urziceanu's amended complaint again recites incidents occurring in
Nevada and names only Defendants apparently residing in Nevada. C.D. 8. Mr.
Urziceanu conclusorily states at the end ofhis amended complaint that he is
homeless because of "another police seizure of all my property in Missoula
County for exactly the same thing as in NV" and "[t]hrough the actions of
Missoula County Sheriffs Department, I have lost all belongings and property that
I left NY with." C.D. 8, p. 4.

IlL

Discussion
Mr. Urziceanu's conclusory statements regarding Missoula County are

insufficient to establish jurisdiction in this matter. Mr. Urziceanu was told he
"must provide specific factual allegations for each element of each of his claims,
and must state with specificity to which defendants each of his claims apply."
C.D. 5, p. 7. Mr. Urziceanu was also required to "specifically plead the basis for
the Court to exercise jurisdiction over his claims and the named defendants." Id.
Page 3 of 5

J

Only Defendants from Nevada were named in the amended complaint. Only facts
arising in Nevada were alleged. As such, his amended complaint should be
dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction.
Mr. Urziceanu is not entitled to a ten-day period to object, so this Order will
be entered directly upon endorsement. Minetti v. Port ofSeattle, 152 F.3d 1113,
1114 (9th Cir. 1998) (per curiam).

Based on the foregoing, the Court issues the following:
RECOMMENDATION that the following Order be issued by Judge Molloy.

DATED this

10 day of November, 2011.

~7~
Keit Strong
United States Magistrate Judge

Based upon the above Recommendation by Judge Strong, the Court issues
the following:
ORDER

1. Mr. Urziceanu's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Court Doc. 1) is
DENIED and this matter is DISMISSED for lack ofjurisdiction.

2. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this matter and enter judgment

Page 4 of 5

.•

.,

pursuant to Rule 58 of~the :rderal Rules of Civil Procedure.

__ day
DATED thi~of November, OM

/

Donal
United States Dist . t Judge

/
!

J

Page 5 of 5