Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05874/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05874-0/pdf.json

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

---

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 G:\PRO-SE\MJJ\CR.07\riches29.dsm.wpd

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JONATHAN LEE RICHES,

Plaintiff,

 v.

BEN BERNANKE, et al.,

Defendants. ____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 07-5874 MJJ (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiff, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this pro se complaint against Ben

Bernanke, along with other current and former members of the Board of Directors of the

Federal Reserve Bank. Plaintiff also names as defendants the Council of Economic

Advisors, the Federal Open Market Committee, several bank executives, two universities and

the “1970 Penn Central Railroad Collapse.” 

A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a prisoner seeks

redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. §

1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any cognizable claims and dismiss any claims that

are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seek monetary

relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See id. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings

must, however, be liberally construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699

(9th Cir. 1988). To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential

elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and

(2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See

Case 3:07-cv-05874-MJJ Document 3 Filed 12/19/07 Page 1 of 2
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

G:\PRO-SE\MJJ\CR.07\riches29.dsm.wpd 2

West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

Sections 1915A and 1915(e)(2) accord judges the unusual power to pierce the veil of

the complaint's factual allegations and dismiss as frivolous those claims whose factual

contentions are clearly baseless. See Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32 (1992). 

Examples are claims describing fantastic or delusional scenarios with which federal district

judges are all too familiar. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 328 (1989). To pierce the

veil of the complaint's factual allegations means that a court is not bound, as it usually is

when making a determination based solely on the pleadings, to accept without question the

truth of the plaintiff's allegations. See Denton, 504 U.S. at 32. A finding of factual

frivolousness is appropriate when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the

wholly incredible, whether or not there are judicially noticeable facts available to contradict

them. See id. at 32-33. 

Plaintiff alleges that he is an “Economic Pontiff,” and he seeks an order compelling

defendants to “revise monetary policy.” Plaintiff alleges that his “dollar is worthless,” and

that defendants’ policies have cut his prison’s budge and have caused him to earn “.12 cents

a month in prison.” Plaintiff further alleges that rising oil prices “causes guards to come to

work mad and they take their anger out on me.” Plaintiff also seeks an order to compel

defendant Bernanke “to shave his beard and help me, he is the Devil of the 2000s.” As

plaintiff’s allegations are clearly baseless, irrational or wholly incredible, the complaint will

be dismissed as frivolous under sections 1915A and 1915(e)(2).

For the foregoing reasons, this action is DISMISSED. 

The Clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: 12/18/07 _____________________________

MARTIN J. JENKINS

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-05874-MJJ Document 3 Filed 12/19/07 Page 2 of 2