Griffin v. Spokane Police Department - National 911 System et al

Filing 6

ORDER RE REPORT AND RECOMMENATION AND CLOSING FILE. Adopting in full 5 Report and Recommendations. Case Closed. Signed by Senior Judge Justin L. Quackenbush. (SK, Case Administrator)

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

4
5
6
7

JUAN P. GRIFFIN,

8

Plaintiff,

9
10
11

v.
SPOKANE POLICE DEPARTMENT NATIONAL 911 SYSTEM, et al.,

NO. 2:16-CV-00279-JLQ
ORDER RE: REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION AND
CLOSING FILE

12

Defendants.

13
14
15

BEFORE THE COURT is the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 5, “Report”)

16

of Magistrate Judge Rodgers. On September 6, 2016, Magistrate Judge Rodgers issued

17

the Report recommending closing the file of this matter because Plaintiff failed to

18

respond to Magistrate Judge Rodgers’ Order Denying Application to Proceed In Forma

19

Pauperis (ECF No. 3). Plaintiff did not file an objection to the Report.

20

On August 1, 2016, Plaintiff submitted his Complaint (ECF No. 2) and an

21

application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1). On August 2, 2016, Magistrate

22

Judge Rodgers issued an Order Denying Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma

23

pauperis because Plaintiff put inconsistent information in his application. (ECF No. 3).

24

Specifically, Plaintiff reported monthly wages in response to Question No. 2, but also

25

stated he is not currently employed, and Plaintiff did not provide the required details on

26

each other lawsuit listed in response to Question No. 9. (ECF No. 1); (ECF No. 3).

27

Plaintiff was directed, within 30 days, to: (1) pay the full filing fee; (2) show cause why

28

prepayment would be inappropriate; or (3) submit a properly completed application to
ORDER - 1

1

proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 3). To date, Plaintiff has not taken any of the three

2

actions identified above.

3

When a magistrate judge issues a report and recommendation, the district court

4

“may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations

5

made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The district court “shall make a de

6

novo determination of those portions of the report ... or recommendations to which

7

objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

8
9

Plaintiff made no objection to the Report and has taken no action to comply with
Magistrate Judge Rodgers’ Order, such as submitting a properly completed application or

10

tendering the filing fee. The undisputed evidence shows Plaintiff submitted an

11

inconsistent application, it was denied, and Plaintiff has not attempted to remedy the

12

errors since the Order Denying Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis was entered.

13

Despite Plaintiff’s lack of objection, the court has reviewed the Report en toto and finds

14

closing the file in this matter is appropriate for failure to comply with the court’s Order

15

and also for failure to prosecute under Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b). The court is adopting the

16

Report and closing this file for the reasons set forth therein. However, had Plaintiff

17

presented a complete application to proceed in forma pauperis, the Complaint would be

18

dismissed as frivolous. For the reasons set forth below, the court finds the claims

19

presented in the Complaint are frivolous.

20

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), a district court “may authorize the

21

commencement ... of any suit ... without prepayment of fees... by a person who submits

22

an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets such [person] possesses that the person

23

in unable to pay such fees or give security therefor.” See also, Andrews v. Cervantes, 493

24

F.3d 1047, 1051 n.1 (9th Cir. 2007) (citing Lister v. Department of Treasury, 408 F.3d

25

1309, 1312 (10th Cir. 2005) (holding the statute applies to all persons, not just prisoners)).

26

However, “the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines ... the

27

action ... (i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be

28

granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such
ORDER - 2

1
2

relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
A complaint “is frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.

3

[The] term ‘frivolous,’ when applied to a complaint, embraces not only the inarguable

4

legal conclusion, but also the fanciful factual allegation.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S.

5

319, 325 (1989), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Lopez v. Smith, 203

6

F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000). The court may dismiss a claim when it is “based on

7

an indisputably meritless legal theory” or when “factual contentions are clearly baseless.”

8

Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327. The “critical inquiry” is whether any of the claims have “an

9

arguable basis in law and fact.” Jackson v. State of Ariz., 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir.

10
11

1989), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1130-31.
A “finding of factual frivolousness is appropriate when the facts alleged rise to the

12

level of the irrational or the wholly incredible, whether or not there are judicially

13

noticeable facts available to contradict them.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33

14

(1992). In considering whether a complaint is frivolous, “the in forma pauperis statute,

15

unlike Rule 12(b)(6), ‘accords judges not only the authority to dismiss a claim based on

16

an indisputably meritless legal theory, but also the unusual power to pierce the veil of the

17

complaint’s factual allegations and dismiss those claims whose factual contentions are

18

clearly baseless.” (Id.) (quoting Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327).

19

Plaintiff alleged his civil rights were violated because a police officer told Plaintiff

20

“they don’t work” when Plaintiff stated “not are there only cameras but sound recording

21

devices within two blocks of any bank.” (ECF No. 2 at 4). Plaintiff also alleged U.S.

22

Bank imposed four $36 overdraft fees. (ECF No. 2 at 4). Plaintiff poses a couple

23

questions in his Complaint: “Why can’t U.S. Bank tell me my credit line” and “when it

24

comes to bank security what does the federal government say about cameras?” (ECF No.

25

2 at 3-4). Plaintiff did not indicate any basis for jurisdiction. (ECF No. 2 at 3). Plaintiff

26

alleged he suffered a “sore neck” as injuries related to these allegations. (ECF No. 2 at 6).

27

For these alleged civil rights violations, Plaintiff seeks “$995.00 trillion dollars” in

28

damages from each Defendant. (ECF No. 2 at 6).
ORDER - 3

1

Plaintiff’s factual allegations are baseless and frivolous. Plaintiff indicated no valid

2

basis for jurisdiction, and his factual allegations further demonstrate a lack of federal

3

jurisdiction in this matter. Additionally, the factual allegations fail to present a plausible

4

claim of a civil rights violation when his claims stem from whether security cameras exist

5

and $120 in overdraft fees imposed on his account. He presents no cognizable claim and

6

his alleged questions are not matters of relevance to this court. The court finds the

7

Complaint frivolous and no amendment would cure the baseless claims contained therein.

8

The court also observes Plaintiff has eight other cases pending which contain

9

similar allegations of a sparse, conclusory, and fanciful nature. It appears Plaintiff deems

10

it appropriate to file a new lawsuit whenever he is unhappy or dissatisfied with another

11

person’s actions. This defies the purpose of civil lawsuits and takes up the court’s time

12

addressing frivolous claims. Plaintiff is warned a litigant who burdens the court with

13

repetitive and frivolous litigation runs the risk of being declared a vexatious litigant. See

14

Molski v. Evergreen Dynasty Corp., 500 F.3d 1047 (9th Cir. 2007). This court is

15

considering initiating such a process in light of Plaintiff’s conduct and allegations in all

16

of the pending cases, including the instant matter.

17

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

18

1.

ADOPTED IN FULL.

19
20

2.

23
24

The court finds the Complaint (ECF No. 2) and the claims and factual
allegations contained therein are frivolous and baseless.

21
22

The Report and Recommendation dated September 6, 2016 (ECF No. 5), is

IT IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk is directed to enter this Order, furnish a copy to
Mr. Griffin, and close this file.
Dated October 6, 2016.
s/ Justin L. Quackenbush
JUSTIN L. QUACKENBUSH
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

25
26
27
28
ORDER - 4