Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-08048/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-08048-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OLADAPO OLAJIDE,

Plaintiff,

 v.

GAVIN NEWSOM in his official capacity as

Governor of California; XAVIER BECERRA,

in his official capacity as Attorney General of

California;

Defendants. /

No. C 19-08048 WHA

ORDER DENYING APPLICATION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

Generously read, the pro se complaint (Dkt. No. 1) alleges that plaintiff Oladapo Olajide

is African American, and that the California requirement to obtain a driver license before

operating a motor vehicle on public motorways violates the Constitution and is a mechanism for

the subjugation of people of his race. The complaint further alleges that the Governor has

caused law enforcement officers to carry loaded firearms on the public motorways and “to stop

the locomotion of black persons; to compel their energy and labor to serve as peons in

liquidation of obligations and debts established under the Governor[’]s budget and other state

laws without being subject to a lawful judgment . . .” (id. at ¶ 12). No further detail is provided. 

Nor is there any allegation that plaintiff has been an actual victim of such regime. At most, he

generally alleges that he is “subjected to” this regime. Of course, persons of all races, including

African Americans, are entitled to equal protection under the law and due process of law, but

there are no well pled allegations in the complaint that come close to explaining how plaintiff

Case 3:19-cv-08048-WHA Document 8 Filed 12/10/19 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

2

has been denied equal protection or due process. Instead, the complaint is a rambling diatribe

against the Governor and Attorney General of California. The United States District Court

should not countenance such a pleading. Accordingly, plaintiff’s application to proceed in

forma pauperis (“IFP”) is denied, given that the complaint is frivolous. In addition, paragraph

one of the complaint states “[p]laintiff is a sole proprietor business person.” If true, it is hard to

believe plaintiff lacks the financial resources to pay the requisite filing fee. 

The motion for a temporary restraining order is equally incomprehensible and is denied

on that ground as well as on the ground that the filing fee has not been paid, IFP being denied. 

The Clerk shall not accept the complaint or papers for filing without payment of the

usual filing fee. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 10, 2019. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:19-cv-08048-WHA Document 8 Filed 12/10/19 Page 2 of 2