Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00043/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00043-1/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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\LAB\11cv0043-dsm complaint 1915A.wpd 1 11cv0043 LAB (BLM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VICTOR BRAVO,

CDCR #V-21456,

Civil No. 11-0043 LAB (BLM)

Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT

AS FRIVOLOUS PURSUANT TO 28

vs. U.S.C. § 1915A

A. SCHWARZENEGGER; MATTHEW

CATES; G. NEOTTI; SMITH; UNNAMED

OFFICERS,

Defendants.

I.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On January 7, 2011, Victor Bravo, a state inmate currently incarcerated at the Richard J.

Donovan Correctional Facility located in San Diego, California, submitted a civil action pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In addition, Plaintiff filed a “Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis” which

was denied by the Court as barred by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Jan. 14, 2011 Order at 5.

Plaintiff has now filed the required $350.00 initial civil filing fee in order to proceed in this

matter. 

/ / /

Case 3:11-cv-00043-LAB-BLM Document 8 Filed 11/14/11 Page 1 of 3
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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\LAB\11cv0043-dsm complaint 1915A.wpd 2 11cv0043 LAB (BLM)

II.

SUA SPONTE SCREENING PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)

The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, obligates the Court to

review complaints filed by anyone “incarcerated or detained in any facility who is accused of,

sentenced for, or adjudicated delinquent for, violations of criminal law or the terms or conditions

of parole, probation, pretrial release, or diversionary program,” “as soon as practicable after

docketing” and regardless of whether the prisoner prepays filing fees or moves to proceed IFP.

See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), (c). The Court must sua sponte dismiss prisoner complaints, or any

portions thereof, which are frivolous, malicious, or fail to state a claim upon which relief may

be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b); Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 446-47 (9th Cir. 2000).

Section 1983 imposes two essential proof requirements upon a claimant: (1) that a person

acting under color of state law committed the conduct at issue, and (2) that the conduct deprived

the claimant of some right, privilege, or immunity protected by the Constitution or laws of the

United States. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983; Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 535 (1981), overruled on

other grounds by Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 328 (1986); Haygood v. Younger, 769 F.2d

1350, 1354 (9th Cir. 1985) (en banc).

Plaintiff’s Complaint is far from coherent but he appears to allege that he is being “falsely

imprisoned” due to government officials believing they are “authorized by the State of California

to imprison people without a court of law trial.” (Compl. at 2.) Plaintiff also appears to claim

that the Warden for Donovan is using “influence peddling” to “support the conspiracy to falsely

imprison” Plaintiff. (Id. at 29.) A complaint is frivolous “where it lacks an arguable basis either

in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). Here, the Court finds that

Plaintiff’s suit lacks any arguable basis in law, and is therefore frivolous under § 1915A(b)(1).

And, to the extent Plaintiff alleges any facts at all, they appear “fanciful,” “fantastic,” and

“delusional” and are clearly baseless. Id. at 328. 

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:11-cv-00043-LAB-BLM Document 8 Filed 11/14/11 Page 2 of 3
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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\LAB\11cv0043-dsm complaint 1915A.wpd 3 11cv0043 LAB (BLM)

III.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

(1) Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A(b)(1). Moreover, because the Court finds amendment futile, leave to amend is

DENIED. See Cahill v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 80 F.3d 336, 339 (9th Cir. 1996) (denial of a

leave to amend is not an abuse of discretion where further amendment would be futile); see also

Robinson v. California Bd. of Prison Terms, 997 F. Supp. 1303, 1308 (C.D. Cal. 1998) (“Since

plaintiff has not, and cannot, state a claim containing an arguable basis in law, this action should

be dismissed without leave to amend; any amendment would be futile.”) (citing Newland v.

Dalton, 81 F.3d 904, 907 (9th Cir. 1996)).

(2) Further, this Court CERTIFIES that any IFP appeal from this Order would not

be taken “in good faith” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). See Coppedge v. United States, 369

U.S. 438, 445 (1962); Gardner v. Pogue, 558 F.2d 548, 550 (9th Cir. 1977) (indigent appellant

is permitted to proceed IFP on appeal only if appeal would not be frivolous).

(3) The Clerk of Court shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 10, 2011

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

Case 3:11-cv-00043-LAB-BLM Document 8 Filed 11/14/11 Page 3 of 3