Cram v. US Interior
Order Certifying that In Forma Pauperis Status Should Not Continue on Appeal. The Clerk of Court is directed to send a copy of this order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (reference case number 17-15933). Signed by Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey on 5/10/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - cc: USCA - MR)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
Barbara Ruth Cram,
Order Certifying that In Forma
Pauperis Status Should Not Continue
Pro se plaintiff Barbara Ruth Cram sued the “U.S. Interior” alleging that she and her newborn
baby were both stabbed, beheaded, and murdered by “subject[s]” she described as “ventriloquists
[that] sound like each other and have white hair,” who “work in corrections,” and are “members of a
roving gang.” Cram, however, failed to describe how the roving gang of white haired ventriloquists
that murdered her and her baby implicated the “U.S. Interior,” when and how. Magistrate Judge Bill
Hoffman granted Cram’s application to proceed in forma pauperis but recommended that Cram’s
complaint be dismissed with prejudice because her allegations “describe[d] fantastic and delusional
scenarios and [did] not state a claim upon which relief can be granted.”1 Cram timely objected.
In Cram’s disjointed objection to Judge Hoffman’s report and recommendation, Cram raised
additional allegations of “guarding judges,” “Janet Reno’s home,” “the Secretary of State,” “the U.S.
President[,] and more than one senator that became president,” and also “being knifed hundreds of
times . . . [and] dropped on the freeway in the travel lanes to die under cars.”2 After reviewing de
novo those portions of the report and recommendation that Cram objected to, I agreed that Cram’s
complaint lacks any plausible factual allegations and is replete with delusional and frivolous claims.
I, therefore, adopted Magistrate Judge Hoffman’s report and recommendation and dismissed Cram’s
ECF No. 7 (citing Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126 (9th Cir. 2000) (stating that a district court
is not required to provide leave to amend a complaint if the complaint could not possibly be cured by
the allegation of other facts)).
ECF No. 10.
Page 1 of 2
complaint with prejudice and denied all pending motions as moot.3
The Ninth Circuit has referred this matter back to me to determine whether Cram’s in forma
pauperis status should continue on appeal, which requires me to determine whether her appeal is
frivolous or taken in bad faith.4 This case was dismissed at the trial level for failure to state a claim
upon which relief could be granted and this defect will continue on appeal. Accordingly, for the
reasons set forth in my dismissal order, I HEREBY CERTIFY that this appeal is frivolous and taken
in bad faith and that in forma pauperis status should not continue on appeal.
The Clerk of Court is directed to send a copy of this order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit (reference case number 17-15933).
Dated this 10th day of May, 2017.
Jennifer A. Dorsey
United States District Judge
ECF No. 13.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); see also Hooker v. American Airlines, 302 F.3d 1091, 1092 (9th Cir.
Page 2 of 2
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?