Thomas v. California Department of Correction and Rehailitation
Order: This action is DISMISSED. Signed on 02/06/2018 by Judge Michael J. McShane.(copy of order mailed to plaintiff) (jw)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF OREGON
ALDEN A. THOMAS, SR.,
Trustee, doing business as P.A.J.
Trust Executor Office,
Case No. 3:18-cv-00152-MC
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION,
RAYMOND MADDEN, Warden,
MCSHANE, District Judge:
Plaintiff, a California inmate appearing pro se, files this action and applies to proceed in
forma pauperis. Review of the application and plaintiff’s inmate account certification reveals that
plaintiff is unable to afford the fees of this action. However, the case must be dismissed.
Federal law authorizes federal courts to review cases filed in forma pauperis to determine
if a claim is either “frivolous or malicious” or “fails to state a claim on which relief may be
granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The court must construe pro se pleadings liberally and
afford the plaintiff “the benefit of any doubt.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010)
(citation omitted). “Unless it is absolutely clear that no amendment can cure” defects in the
complaint, “a pro se litigant is entitled to notice of the complaint's deficiencies and an
opportunity to amend prior to dismissal of the action.” Lucas v. Dep’t of Corr., 66 F.3d 245, 248
(9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam).
Plaintiff seeks entry and enforcement of a foreign or “tribal court money judgment,”
allegedly issued against the California Department of Corrections in the amount of
$10,000,000.00. (ECF Nos. 2, 2-1) However, the purported foreign judgment plaintiff seeks to
enforce was “issued” from an unspecified, unknown, and likely fictitious court, and this Court
cannot register or enforce unauthenticated judgments. See 28 U.S.C. § 1738.
This action is DISMISSED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 6th day of February, 2018.
_s/ Michael J. McShane
United States District Judge
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?