Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-00096/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-00096-0/pdf.json

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

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSEPH BRAGGS, 

Plaintiff,

 vs.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 10-0096 JSW (PR)

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

INTRODUCTION

Petitioner, currently incarcerated by the State of California at Pelican Bay State

Prison, has filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The complaint is

largely incomprehensible. This order reviews the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1915A and dismisses the complaint for the reasons set forth below. 

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff’s complaint is incomprehensible, commencing with a discussion of

Plaintiff’s desire to assert his “Hawaiian citizenship” and to be deported there. Plaintiff

goes on to complain about celibacy in prison as well as his father’s failure to pay child

support to his mother during his childhood. The complaint goes into problems he has

with how his trial was conducted, as well as complaints about conditions of his

confinement, including that some money of his “went missing” when he was moved

between prisons during his incarceration in 1995 or 1996 and that the proximity of toilets

within the prison results in his being subjected to unpleasant smells. 

Case 3:10-cv-00096-JSW Document 5 Filed 01/22/10 Page 1 of 4
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

A. Standard of Review

Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners

seek 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 which 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. at 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. See

Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential

elements: (1) that a violation of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United

States was violated, and (2) that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person

acting under the color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

B. Legal Claim

In this case, Plaintiff has filed a complaint raising numerous issues. However,

Plaintiff’s complaint fails to set forth any comprehensible allegations from which the

Court can discern a legitimate basis for his complaint. 

A claim is frivolous if it is premised on an indisputably meritless legal theory or is

clearly lacking any factual basis. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989). 

Although a complaint is not "frivolous" within the meaning of sections 1915A and

1915(e)(2) because it fails to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

12(b)(6) ("Rule 12(b)(6)"), see Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 331, failure to state a claim is a

separate basis for dismissal under sections 1915A and 1915(e)(2). 

A dismissal as legally frivolous is proper only if the legal theory lacks an arguable

basis, while under Rule 12(b)(6) a court may dismiss a claim on a dispositive issue of

law without regard to whether it is based on an outlandish theory or on a close but

ultimately unavailing one. See id. at 324-28. A claim that is totally incomprehensible

Case 3:10-cv-00096-JSW Document 5 Filed 01/22/10 Page 2 of 4
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

may be dismissed as frivolous as it is without an arguable basis in law. See Jackson v.

Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 641 (9th Cir. 1989). The Court is unable to ascertain a

cognizable federal claim from Plaintiff’s incomprehensible civil rights complaint. As

such, the entire complaint fails to state a claim for relief and is dismissed. 

CONCLUSION 

Based on the foregoing, this action is DISMISSED. The Clerk of Court shall

close the file and enter judgment in accordance with this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 22, 2010

 JEFFREY S. WHITE

United States District Judge

Case 3:10-cv-00096-JSW Document 5 Filed 01/22/10 Page 3 of 4
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

JOSEPH B. BRAGGS,

Plaintiff,

 v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

Defendant. /

Case Number: CV10-00096 JSW 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District

Court, Northern District of California.

That on January 22, 2010, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing

said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by

depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office

delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Joseph Braggs

P.O. Box 7500

J58142

Crescent City, CA 95531

Dated: January 22, 2010

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: Jennifer Ottolini, Deputy Clerk

Case 3:10-cv-00096-JSW Document 5 Filed 01/22/10 Page 4 of 4