Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-00232/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-00232-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331(a) Fed. Question: Real Property

---

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

CLARENCE J. COOMBS,

Plaintiff(s),

 vs.

CHASE HOME FINANCE, et al.,

Defendant(s). /

Case No. 08-0232MHP 

ORDER DENYING IN

FORMA PAUPERIS

FILING AND

DISMISSING

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff attempts to invoke the admiralty jurisdiction of this court with his complaint which

he titles “Petition for Libel Review of an Administrative Judgment” and denominating himself as

Sramineus Homo, US Vessel, Libellant”. His complaint is strewn with misused, nonexistent or

curious words purportedly in English, Latin and bloated legalese.1 Plaintiff quotes from or cites to

all manner of cases ranging from theft and kidnap to asylum, admiralty and insurance, with a few

citations to the Old Testament thrown in under a paragraph entitled “Law of the flag”.

What is clear from plaintiff’s complaint is that nothing is clear. It is not a short and plain

statement of his case. It is incomprehensible and nonsensical. The only thing in the complaint that

makes any sense is a two-page document entitled “Mortgage Loan Statement”. It is buried among

the morass of allegations, statements and gibberish that fill the rest of the thirty plus pages.

The district court may deny in forma pauperis status and 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

Case 3:08-cv-00232-MHP Document 4 Filed 01/18/08 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

v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989)(found to be superseded on other grounds by reason of

adoption of section 1915(e) which makes dismissal for failure to state a claim mandatory), see, e.g., 

Lopez v. G.A.Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126 (9thCir.2000); Cruz v. Gomez, I/O, 202 F.3d 593, 596

(2dCir.2000). 

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 alleges facts that are "clearly baseless", "fanciful", or

"delusional" it may be dismissed as frivolous. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 112 S.Ct. 1728,

1733 (1992)(also found superseded in that dismissal was within discretion of district court under

section 1915(d)) and now, under section 1915(e)(2) dismissal is mandatory, see Cruz v. Gomez, 202

F.3d at 596. If the pro se plaintiff can cure the factual allegations in order to state a claim, the court

may give him or her leave to do so. However, if repleading cannot cure the deficiencies the court

may dismiss without leave to amend and even dismiss with prejudice. See Cato v. United States, 70

F.3d at 1106.

The court fails to see how plaintiff could state any claim that would amount to a plausible

claim or one over which this court would have jurisdiction, but then it is impossible to tell from

plaintiff's complaint. Certainly, there is nothing that appears from the papers that falls within the

court's admiralty jurisdiction. Plaintiff cannot make himself and the defendant vessels just by

calling them vessels. Therefore, the application to file in forma pauperis is DENIED and the

complaint is DISMISSED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: January 17, 2008 

MARILYN HALL PATEL

Judge, United States District Court

Northern District of California

Case 3:08-cv-00232-MHP Document 4 Filed 01/18/08 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

1. For example, in the caption plaintiff refers to himself as “Sramineus Homo”. There is no such word

as “sramineus” in Latin; there is a word “stramineus” which appears later in the complaint. "Stramineus"

means “straw” and would render him a “straw man”. That term, of course, refers to an idea or argument

that has no substance, but is set up so that it can be easily knocked down. So, either plaintiff

misunderstands the meaning of the term or perhaps he has a sense of humor. 

ENDNOTES

Case 3:08-cv-00232-MHP Document 4 Filed 01/18/08 Page 3 of 3