Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02472/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02472-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

oo NN DH PF WH HK

NY NY NNN NH KN De ee ee eR
oN AA BF YW HS KF SF OD mem IN DH BF WN SK SD

FILED
MAY = 5 2006

RICHARD W. WIEKING
GChRRK, U5, QW TRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

No. C-06-2472 MHP
PARVANEH BORHANI, ORDER DISMISSING
COMPLAINT AND
Plaintiff(s), DENYING IN FORMA
PAUPERIS
vs. APPLICATION

THE WHOLE WORLD, DAVID M. KELLY,
UCB HOUSING, and GE,

Defendant(s).

Plaintiff has filed this complaint against The Whole World, UCB Housing (apparently
University of California at Berkeley Housing Department), GE (presumably General Electric Corp.)
and her former husband. Beyond that, it is difficult to determine the nature of plaintiff's claims.
They are rambling, random and incoherent and state no claims over which this court has jurisdiction.

The only relief that plaintiff appears to seek amidst all of these ramblings is that she wants
“emergency cash, or good food from Persia Restaurant, hotel stay temp or house stay or airline ticket
to Florida ... but under a different name." (Omitted words indecipherable) Plaintiff also alleges that
she needs "someone young and good looking".

Although federal judges are sometimes believed to be omnipotent, so far there is no record of
their having performed miracles. We are confined to the limits of mere written documents such as

the United States Constitution and statutes enacted by Congress. This court has no jurisdiction to do

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

oOo NIN DH RF WN

RP NR YN HRN KR KN SF Be Be Be ee ee ew
oI A A KF BRHF SF CHAKA AHA BR HNH KE DS

that which plaintiff requests even if we could perform miracles. Plaintiff states no basis for a
cognizable federal claim.

The district court may deny in forma pauperis status and even where the filing fee is paid
dismiss a complaint sua sponte if federal subject matter jurisdiction is lacking or if the complaint is
frivolous. See 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2). A complaint is frivolous if "it lacks an arguable basis either
in law or in fact." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989).

Where a complaint fails to state "any constitutional or statutory right that was violated, nor
asserts any basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction", there is no "arguable basis in law" under
Neitzke and the court on its own initiative may decline to permit the plaintiff to proceed and dismiss
the complaint under section 1915(d). Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995).

Furthermore, where the complaint is wholly lacking in merit, is "clearly baseless", "fanciful",
or "delusional" it may be dismissed as frivolous. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 112 S.Ct.
1728, 1733 (1992). If the pro se plaintiff can cure the factual allegations in order to state a claim, the
court must give him or her leave to do so. Id. at 1734. However, if repleading cannot cure the
deficiences the court may dismiss without leave to amend, id., and even dismiss with prejudice. See
Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d at 1106.

For the reasons articulated above plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis is

DENIED and this complaint is DISMISSED. The Clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED

Date: May 5, 2006

MARILYN HALL PATEL
District Judge

United States District Court
Northern District of California