Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02518/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02518-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

 Plaintiff’s Complaint is identical to several other cases, all filed just a few days prior to this

one, purporting to sue other Article III Judges and a United States Magistrate Judge of this Court and

all asserting the same frivolous and malicious claims. See also Jordan v. Sammartino, S.D. Cal. Civil

Case No. 11-2404 BEN (WVG); Jordan v. Lewis, S.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 11cv2403 BEN (NLS);

Jordan v. Huff, S.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 11cv2405 BEN (WVG) . A court “‘may take notice of

proceedings in other courts, both within and without the federal judicial system, if those proceedings

have a direct relation to matters at issue.’” Bias v. Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212, 1225 (9th Cir. 2007)

(quoting Bennett v. Medtronic, Inc., 285 F.3d 801, 803 n.2 (9th Cir. 2002)). Plaintiff has not paid the

$350 civil filing fee in any of these, or any prior civil case he has filed in the Southern District, and has

thus far managed to avoid 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)’s “3-strikes” bar by submitting his complaints

-1- 11cv2518 MMA (JMA)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IMHOTEP JORDAN, Jr., 

aka JOHN JORDAN, CDCR #C-71742,

Civil No. 11-2518 MMA (JMA)

Plaintiff, ORDER: 

(1) DISMISSING CIVIL ACTION

FOR FAILING TO PAY FILING

FEES AND FOR FAILING TO

MOVE IN FORMA PAUPERIS

AND

(2) AS FRIVOLOUS AND

MALICIOUS PURSUANT 

TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)

 vs.

JOHN A. HOUSTON,

Defendant.

 

Plaintiff, currently incarcerated at Calipatria State Prison, in Calipatria, California, and

proceeding pro se, has filed a civil action entitled “Demand for Contractual Oath of Office

Duties”” [ECF No. 1], in which he seeks to sue an Article III Judge for various violations of his

“contractual oath of office.”1

Case 3:11-cv-02518-MMA-JMA Document 2 Filed 11/01/11 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 unaccompanied by motions to proceed in forma pauperis. See e.g., Jordan v. Cardenas, S.D. Cal. Civil

Case No. 11-1152 DMS (NLS); Jordan v. Andersen, S.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 11-1153 IEG (JMA);

Jordan v. Borem, S.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 11-1154 BEN (NLS); Jordan v. Drake, S.D. Cal. Civil Case

No. 11-1155 AJB (MDD); and Jordan v. Coronado, 11-1156 BTM (MDD). 

-2- 11cv2518 MMA (JMA)

I. FAILURE TO PAY FILING FEE OR REQUEST IFP STATUS

Any party instituting a civil action, suit or proceeding in a district court of the United

States, other than a writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of $350. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1914(a). An action may proceed despite a party’s failure to pay only if the party is granted

leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See Andrews v.

Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 2007); Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th

Cir. 1999). However, Plaintiff has not prepaid the $350 filing fee required to commence a civil

action; nor has he submitted a Motion to Proceed IFP. Therefore, the case must be dismissed

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a).

II. INITIAL SCREENING PER 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)

Pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court

is obligated to review complaints filed by anyone “incarcerated or detained in any facility who

is accused of, sentenced for, or adjudicated delinquent for, violations of criminal law or the terms

or conditions of parole, probation, pretrial release, or diversionary program,” “as soon as

practicable after docketing” and regardless of whether the prisoner prepays filing fees or moves

to proceed IFP. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), (c). The Court must sua sponte dismiss prisoner

complaints, or any portions thereof, which are frivolous, malicious, or fail to state a claim upon

which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b); Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 446-47

(9th Cir. 2000).

While Plaintiff’s action is practically indecipherable, he apparently seeks to sue a United

States District Judge demanding that he abide by his “contractual oath of office” which requires

“defending and support the rights vested to me by the way of the United States Constitution and

the Constitution of the State of California as a free born living breathing flesh and blood god

created sovereign sentient being.” (Compl. at 1.)

A complaint is frivolous “where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.”

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). Here, there is no question that Plaintiff’s suit

Case 3:11-cv-02518-MMA-JMA Document 2 Filed 11/01/11 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-3- 11cv2518 MMA (JMA)

lacks any arguable basis in law, and is therefore frivolous under § 1915A(b)(1). And, to the

extent Plaintiff alleges any facts at all, they appear “fanciful,” “fantastic,” and “delusional” and

are clearly baseless. Id. at 328. In fact, Plaintiff’s pleading, when considered in light of his

pattern of frivolous submissions in this district, may further be classified as “malicious” insofar

as it appears to lack good faith and “suggest[s] an intent to vex the defendants or abuse the

judicial process.” See Crisafi v. Holland, 655 F.2d 1305, 1309 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (a complaint

may be inferred to be “malicious” if it suggests an intent to abuse the judicial process by relitigating claims decided in prior cases; or if it threatens violence or contains “disrespectful

references to the Court”); accord Aston v. Probst, 217 F.3d 844, 844 (9th Cir. 2000) (table

disposition).

For these reasons, the Court dismisses the entirety of Plaintiff’s Complaint as frivolous

and malicious pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1).

III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the reasons set forth above, the Court hereby:

(1) DISMISSES this action sua sponte without prejudice for failing to pay the $350

filing fee or file a Motion to Proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a) and 1915(a).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that:

(2) Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED as frivolous and malicious pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). Moreover, because the Court finds amendment futile, leave to amend is

DENIED. See Cahill v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 80 F.3d 336, 339 (9th Cir. 1996) (denial of a

leave to amend is not an abuse of discretion where further amendment would be futile); see also

Robinson v. California Bd. of Prison Terms, 997 F. Supp. 1303, 1308 (C.D. Cal. 1998) (“Since

plaintiff has not, and cannot, state a claim containing an arguable basis in law, this action should

be dismissed without leave to amend; any amendment would be futile.”) (citing Newland v.

Dalton, 81 F.3d 904, 907 (9th Cir. 1996)).

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:11-cv-02518-MMA-JMA Document 2 Filed 11/01/11 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-4- 11cv2518 MMA (JMA)

(3) Finally, this Court CERTIFIES that any IFP appeal from this Order would not be

taken “in good faith” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). See Coppedge v. United States, 369

U.S. 438, 445 (1962); Gardner v. Pogue, 558 F.2d 548, 550 (9th Cir. 1977) (indigent appellant

is permitted to proceed IFP on appeal only if appeal would not be frivolous).

(4) The Clerk of Court shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 1, 2011

Hon. Michael M. Anello

United States District Judge

Case 3:11-cv-02518-MMA-JMA Document 2 Filed 11/01/11 Page 4 of 4