Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00507/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00507-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983cv Civil Rights Act - Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights

---

– 1 – 17cv0507

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JARED BENJAMIN MIMMS,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 17-cv-00507-BAS-KSC

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION

AS FRIVOLOUS UNDER 

28 U.S.C. 1915(e)

v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Defendants.

Plaintiff Jared Benjamin Mimms is proceeding pro se—without an attorney. 

Previously, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis

(“IFP”)—without prepaying court fees or costs—but dismissed his Complaint 

without prejudice for lack of standing and for failure to state a claim. (ECF No. 3.)

See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). The Court liberally construed Plaintiff’s Complaint as 

attempting to raise (1) claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, (2) a constitutional challenge 

to California’s Laura’s Law, (3) a claim under the Health Insurance Portability and 

Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”), and (4) state law claims. (Id. 5:14–17.) The 

Court then explained why Plaintiff had not stated a claim under the first three items. 

Case 3:17-cv-00507-BAS-KSC Document 11 Filed 06/30/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
– 2 – 17cv0507

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

(Id. 5:19–10:2.) Afterwards, the Court dismissed any state law claims raised by the 

Complaint because it had already determined Plaintiff’s potential federal claims were

subject to dismissal. (Id. 10:4–16.) That said, the Court provided Plaintiff with leave 

to amend his Complaint. (Id. 11:2–3.)

Plaintiff has now filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). (ECF No. 5.) The 

Court will not quote Plaintiff’s new allegations here. In short, they are fantastical.

They run the gamut from statements regarding eugenics, Adolf Hitler, the California 

independence movement nicknamed “Calexit,” Arnold Schwarzenegger, Peter Thiel, 

psychotropic medications, and the assassination of John F. Kennedy. (Id. 1:18–4:7.) 

Based on these allegations, Plaintiff seeks $150 million in damages “to solve the 

eugenics problem” (Id. 4:9–10.)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), the court must dismiss an action where 

the plaintiff is proceeding IFP if the court determines that the action “is frivolous or 

malicious.” An IFP complaint “is frivolous if it has ‘no arguable basis in fact or law.’”

O’Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1990) (quoting Franklin v. Murphy,

745 F.2d 1221, 1228 (9th Cir. 1984)). This standard grants the court “the unusual 

power to pierce the veil of the complaint’s factual allegations and dismiss those 

claims whose factual contentions are clearly baseless.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 

319, 327 (1989). Consequently, “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.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32 (1992).

Clearly baseless factual allegations include those “that are ‘fanciful,’

‘fantastic,’ and ‘delusional.’” Denton, 504 U.S. at 32–33 (quoting Neitzke v. 

Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325, 327, 328 (1989)). Accordingly, “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.” Id. at 33. These outlandish claims are those “with which federal 

district judges are all too familiar.” Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 328. Thus, district courts 

Case 3:17-cv-00507-BAS-KSC Document 11 Filed 06/30/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
– 3 – 17cv0507

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

have dismissed as frivolous an assortment of complaints containing clearly baseless 

factual allegations. See, e.g., Frost v. Vasan, No. 16-cv-05883 NC, 2017 WL 

2081094, at *1 (N.D. Cal. May 15, 2017) (secret conspiracy involving a U.S. Senator, 

a university, and the CIA); Suess v. Obama, No. CV 17-01184-JAK (DTB), 2017 

WL 1371289, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 10, 2017) (conspiracy involving former President 

Barack Obama, the CIA, and the FBI); Demos v. United States, 2010 WL 4007527, 

at *2 (D. Ore. Oct. 8, 2010) (kidnapping involving law enforcement officers 

disguised as pirates).

Here, having reviewed the allegations in Plaintiff’s FAC, the Court concludes 

they are fantastical and clearly baseless. Thus, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s FAC 

as frivolous. See Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 325; see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i);

DeRock v. Sprint-Nextel, 603 F. App’x 556, 558 (9th Cir. 2015) (affirming dismissal 

of nine actions as either frivolous or failing to state a claim because the plaintiff 

alleged “unsupported legal conclusions and fanciful factual allegations”). In addition, 

because the FAC is frivolous, the Court does not grant Plaintiff leave to amend. See 

Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 n.8 (9th Cir. 2000) (“When a case may be 

classified as frivolous or malicious, there is, by definition, no merit to the underlying 

action and so no reason to grant leave to amend.”).1

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE

Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 5) as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(e)(2)(B)(i). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 30, 2017

 

1 Leave to amend is particularly not appropriate here because the Court already afforded 

Plaintiff an opportunity to amend his Complaint and plead viable claims, but Plaintiff responded 

to the Court’s guidance by filing a pleading that is replete with fantastical allegations. 

Case 3:17-cv-00507-BAS-KSC Document 11 Filed 06/30/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3