Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-00982/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-00982-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 730
Nature of Suit: Labor Management Report &amp; Disclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1001 E.R.I.S.A.

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT LEE JACKSON,

Plaintiff, No. C 06-0982 PJH

v. ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT

AND DENYING REQUEST TO 

US SUPREME COURT, et al., PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

Defendants.

_______________________________/

The court has received plaintiff’s complaint and application to proceed in forma

pauperis, both filed in this court on February 14, 2006. Because there is no legal basis for

plaintiff's complaint, the Court denies plaintiff’s application and dismisses the complaint sua

sponte.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), "[a]ny court of the United States may authorize the

commencement . . . of any suit . . . without prepayment of fees and costs or security

therefor, by a person who makes affidavit that he is unable to pay such costs or give

security therefor." In reviewing an application to proceed in forma pauperis, the court may

dismiss a case sua sponte if the court determines that the party applying for in forma

pauperis status has filed a frivolous action. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); Jackson v. Arizona,

885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1989). For purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915, a frivolous claim is

one that lacks an arguable basis in either law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319,

325, 109 S. Ct. 1827, 1831-32 (1989). Dismissal on these grounds are often made sua

sponte prior to the issuance of process, so as to spare prospective defendants the

inconvenience and expense of answering such complaints. Id., 490 U.S. at 324, 109 S. Ct.

at 1831. Where a litigant is acting pro se and the court finds the litigant's complaint

Case 4:06-cv-00982-PJH Document 4 Filed 03/30/06 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

frivolous within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the court must give the litigant

notice of the deficiencies of the complaint and an opportunity to amend before final

dismissal, unless it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be

cured by amendment. Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987); Eldridge v.

Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1135-37 (9th Cir. 1987).

Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that at some point in time, plaintiff “joined the U.S. army

as [Adjutant] General, U.S. Chief Treasurer, U.S. Chief IRS Agent and World Court

Judge...”. See Complaint, p. 5. He also alleges that he acted as a “World Court federal

hospital inspector and lead military executioner,” and took an oath “to stay 30 years under

[the] Vietnam Geneva Convention Laws of War.” Id. Plaintiff alleges that he “only made

$50.00 a month for doing all these commissioned assignments,” and that he has “been

neglected, underpaid and made to go homeless.” Id. Plaintiff seeks relief in the form of

“grant money” that plaintiff wants issued to him “in a[n] appropriations vote of the U.S.

Supreme Court and the nine district judges.” Id. at 6. Elsewhere in the complaint, plaintiff

mentions the specific sum of $97,000,000.00.

It is impossible to discern from plaintiff’s complaint the legal theories under which

plaintiff seeks relief. Plaintiff alleges no facts in support of his complaint, states no basis for

the court’s subject matter jurisdiction, and does not identify any recognizable causes of

action. Moreover, even if he had done so, plaintiff’s complaint against the alleged

defendants would still fail. Plaintiff has filed his action against the U.S. Supreme Court and

nine “circuit district courts,” an entity later clarified to mean the federal district courts. It is

well-established, however, that federal judges are absolutely immune from suit, unless it is

proven that one of two exceptions applies: (1) the suit stems from an action not taken in the

defendant judge’s official capacity; or (2) the suit stems from an action which, although

judicial in nature, was taken in the complete absence of all jurisdiction. See Mireles v.

Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11-12 (1991). Here, the allegations of plaintiff’s complaint fail to set

forth grounds for application of either exception. Accordingly, the court finds plaintiff’s

Case 4:06-cv-00982-PJH Document 4 Filed 03/30/06 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

complaint frivolous within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), and plaintiff’s complaint is

DISMISSED. 

Although the court is of the opinion that repleading will not resolve the deficiencies in

the complaint, the court will nonetheless allow plaintiff an opportunity to file an amended

complaint. For that amended complaint to be successful, plaintiff must identify each

defendant by official name, must allege separate causes of action, must state a

constitutional or statutory basis for each cause of action, and must allege facts showing

each defendant’s personal involvement in the wrongful act alleged in each cause of action. 

In addition, plaintiff’s amended complaint must allege sufficient facts from which to

conclude that judicial immunity is not applicable in the instant action. Any amended

complaint must be filed no later than May 1, 2006.

If plaintiff fails to file the amended complaint by May 1, 2006, or if he files an

amended complaint not in accordance with the above instructions, the case will be

dismissed with prejudice. 

Because the court orders dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, plaintiff’s request

to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED. 

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 30, 2006 ______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:06-cv-00982-PJH Document 4 Filed 03/30/06 Page 3 of 3