Bahrampour v. Joint Chiefs of Unfaith et al
Filing
4
ORDER Granting 1 Application for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff is permitted to maintain the action to conclusion without the necessity of prepayment of any additional fees, costs or security. This order granting in forma pauperis status does not extend to the issuance of service of subpoenas at government expense. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's 2 Motion for Service is Denied; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff& #039;s 3 Motion to Appoint Counsel is denied; IT IS RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff's Complaint 1 be dismissed with prejudice. Objections to R&R due by 9/3/2015 Signed by Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach on 8/17/15. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - PS) Modified text entry to include Objection date, on 8/17/2015 (RFJ).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
1
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
2
***
3
AFSHIN BAHRAMPOUR,
Case No. 2:15–cv–1548–LDG–VCF
4
Plaintiff,
5
6
vs.
7
JOINT CHIEFS OF UNFAITH, et al.,
ORDER AND
REPORT & RECOMMENDATION
Defendants.
8
APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS (#1)
COMPLAINT (#1-1)
MOTION FOR SERVICE OF SUMMONS (#2)
MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL (#3)
9
This matter involves Afshin Bahrampour’s civil-right action against the Joint Chiefs of Unfaith,
10
11
12
Barack Obama, N.A.S.A., the Central Intelligence Agency, the U.S. Navy, the National Security
Administration, Independent Agencies, and the United States of America, among others. See generally
13
(Compl. #1-1 1). Before the court is Mr. Bahrampour’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis,
14
Complaint, Motion for Service of Summons, and Motion for Appointment of Counsel. For the reasons
15
stated below, Mr. Bahrampour’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis is granted, his complaint
16
should be dismissed with prejudice, and his Motion for Service and for Appointment of Counsel are denied
17
as moot.
18
I.
19
In Forma Pauperis Applications
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a), a filing fee is required to commence a civil action in federal court. The
20
court may authorize the commencement of an action without prepayment of fees and costs or security
21
therefor, by a person who submits an affidavit that includes a statement showing the person is unable to
22
23
pay such costs. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). The standard governing in forma pauperis eligibility under
24
25
1
Parenthetical citations refer to the court’s docket.
1
28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) is “unable to pay such fees or give security therefor.” Determination of what
1
2
constitutes “unable to pay” or unable to “give security therefor” and, therefore whether to allow a plaintiff
3
to proceed in forma pauperis, is left to the discretion of the presiding judge, based on the information
4
submitted by the plaintiff or plaintiffs. See, e.g., Fridman v. City of New York, 195 F. Supp. 2d 534, 536
5
(S.D.N.Y.), aff’d, 52 Fed. Appx. 157 (2nd Cir. 2002).
6
Here, Mr. Bahrampour’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis states that he is incarcerated
7
and has $33.26 in his inmate account. Accordingly, Mr. Bahrampour’s Application to Proceed In Forma
8
Pauperis is granted.
9
II.
10
Section 1915(e) Screening
Upon granting a request to proceed in forma pauperis, a court must screen a complaint pursuant
11
to section 1915(e). Federal courts are given the authority to dismiss a case if the action is legally “frivolous
12
or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a
13
14
15
defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Section 1915 was enacted to
conserve judicial resources by empower courts to dismiss actions, “which fall somewhere between the
16
frivolous and the farcical and so foster disrespect for our laws.” Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 601
17
(1998) (Kennedy, J., concurring).
18
Mr. Bahrampour’s complaint falls within section 1915’s purview. Relying on Romans 1:18–23,
19
Mr. Bahrampour alleges that various government agencies, including the Joint Chiefs of Unfaith, have
20
conspired to spy on American citizens in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Mr. Bahrampour’s
21
complaint should be dismissed. 2
22
23
24
2
25
The court recently recommended dismissing a similar complaint in Bahrampour v. United States, 15-cv-1194MMD-VCF.
2
ACCORDINGLY, and for good cause shown,
1
2
3
IT IS ORDERED that Mr. Bahrampour’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (#1) is
GRANTED.
4
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff is permitted to maintain the action to conclusion
5
without the necessity of prepayment of any additional fees, costs, or security. This order granting in forma
6
pauperis status does not extend to the issuance or service of subpoenas at government expense.
7
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Bahrampour’s Motion for Service (#2) is DENIED.
8
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Bahrampour’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel (#3) is
9
10
DENIED.
IT IS RECOMMENDED that Mr. Bahrampour’s Complaint (#1-1) be DISMISSED with
11
prejudice.
12
NOTICE
13
14
15
Pursuant to Local Rule IB 3-2, any objection to this Finding and Recommendation must be in
writing and filed with the Clerk of the Court within fourteen (14) days. The Supreme Court has held that
16
the courts of appeal may determine that an appeal has been waived due to the failure to file objections
17
within the specified time. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 142 (1985). This circuit has also held that
18
(1) failure to file objections within the specified time and (2) failure to properly address and brief the
19
objectionable issues waives the right to appeal the District Court's order and/or appeal factual issues from
20
the order of the District Court. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991); Britt v. Simi Valley
21
22
United Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983).
/// /// ///
23
/// /// ///
24
/// /// ///
25
3
DATED this 17th day of August, 2015.
1
2
3
4
_________________________
CAM FERENBACH
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?