Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-00182/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-00182-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Personal Injury

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CLAUDE MURRY,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES MINT,

Defendant.

Case No. 15-cv-00182-DMR 

ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION 

TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 

AND DISMISSING CASE WITH LEAVE 

TO AMEND

Re: Dkt. No. 2

Plaintiff filed a Complaint and Application to Proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP 

Application”) on January 13, 2015. [Docket Nos. 1, 2.] The court grants the IFP Application and 

dismisses the complaint with leave to amend.1

I. DISCUSSION

A court may authorize a plaintiff to prosecute an action in federal court without 

prepayment of fees or security if the plaintiff submits an affidavit showing that he or she is unable 

to pay such fees or provide such security. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Having evaluated Plaintiff’s 

financial affidavit, the court finds that he has satisfied the economic eligibility requirement of 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(a) and grants the application to proceed IFP.2 

 

1

 A magistrate judge generally must obtain the consent of the parties to enter dispositive rulings 

and judgments in a civil case. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1). However, in cases such as this one, 

where the plaintiff has consented but not served the defendants, “all parties have consented 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1),” and a magistrate judge therefore “‘may conduct any or all 

proceedings in a jury or nonjury civil matter and order the entry of judgment in the case.’” Gaddy 

v. McDonald, No. CV 11-08271 SS, 2011 WL 5515505, at *1 n.2 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 9, 2011) 

(quoting § 636(c)(1)) (citing United States v. Real Property, 135 F.3d 1312, 1317 (9th Cir. 1995));

Third World Media, LLC v. Doe, No. C 10-04470 LB, 2011 WL 4344160, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 

15, 2011)); see also Neals v. Norwood, 59 F.3d 530, 532 (5th Cir. 1995) (holding that magistrate 

judge had jurisdiction to dismiss action as frivolous without consent of defendants because 

defendants had not yet been served and therefore were not parties).

2 On January 20, 2015, the court ordered Plaintiff to submit a completed IFP application as he had 

Case 4:15-cv-00182-DMR Document 14 Filed 03/16/15 Page 1 of 3
2

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

Northern District of California

The court’s grant of Plaintiff's application to proceed IFP, however, does not mean that he 

may continue to prosecute his complaint. A court is under a continuing duty to dismiss a case

filed without the payment of the filing fee whenever it determines that the action “(i) is frivolous 

or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief 

against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii). Because 

a dismissal pursuant to Section 1915(e)(2)(B) is not a dismissal on the merits, but rather an 

exercise of the court’s discretion under the IFP statute, the dismissal does not prejudice the filing 

of a paid complaint making the same allegations. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32 (1992).

To make the determination under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), courts assess whether there is 

a factual and legal basis for the asserted wrong, “however inartfully pleaded.” Franklin v. 

Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th Cir. 1984). Further, district courts have the authority to 

dismiss complaints founded on “wholly fanciful” factual allegations for lack of subject matter 

jurisdiction. Id. at 1228. As such, “[a] court may dismiss as frivolous complaints reciting bare 

legal conclusions with no suggestion of supporting facts, or postulating events and circumstances 

of a wholly fanciful kind.” Id. (citing Taylor v. Gibson, 529 F.2d 709, 717 (5th Cir. 1976)). A 

complaint is frivolous for purposes of section 1915 if it lacks any arguable basis in fact or law. 

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 328-30 (1989). In addition, a complaint fails to state a claim on 

its fact where it is based solely on conclusory statements, naked assertions without any factual 

basis, or allegations that are not plausible on their face. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677-78 

(2009); see also Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007) (per curiam).

In this case, Plaintiff’s sixty-page handwritten complaint is incomprehensible, and he

asserts few, if any, discernible facts. The complaint is labeled “Agreement between Government 

weights and [measurement],” and he names the United States Mint in San Francisco as the 

Defendant. He states the “false claims unit violated [his] constitutional [rights],” but does not 

explain what the false claims unit is, which constitutional rights it violated, and how it violated his 

 

failed to provide full answers to some of the questions. [Docket No. 4.] Plaintiff did not respond 

to this order or supplement his IFP application. However, based on the information he did 

provide, the court finds that he satisfies the economic eligibility requirement of the statute.

Case 4:15-cv-00182-DMR Document 14 Filed 03/16/15 Page 2 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

rights. He refers to a number of medical conditions, but does not state any facts about how they 

are connected to his claims or to the Defendant. Attached to the complaint are printouts from 

webpages, Internal Revenue Service documents, what appears to be Plaintiff’s certificate of 

discharge from active military duty, and medical records, but Plaintiff does not explain the 

significance of these documents or connect them to the Defendant or to any claim. In sum, 

Plaintiff states no facts in support of a cause of action under any statute, nor does he provide any 

facts suggesting this court has jurisdiction over his complaint. 

The court therefore dismisses the complaint with leave to amend. By no later than April 

10, 2015, Plaintiff may file an amended complaint that addresses the deficiencies noted in this 

order. Specifically, Plaintiff must clearly plead a specific cause or causes of action, state facts 

which support each cause of action, and allege facts connecting Defendant to the conduct of which 

he complains. 

II. CONCLUSION

For the reasons above, the court grants Plaintiff’s IFP Application and dismisses the 

Complaint with leave to amend by April 10, 2015. The Case Management Conference set for

April 15, 2015 is VACATED and may be re-set by the court at a later date. 

The court refers Plaintiff to the section “Representing Yourself” on the Court’s website, 

located at http://cand.uscourts.gov/proselitigants, as well as the Court’s Legal Help Centers for 

unrepresented parties. In San Francisco, the Legal Help Center is located on the 15th Floor, Room 

2796, of the United States Courthouse, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco. In Oakland, the 

Legal Help Center is located on the 4th Floor, Room 470S, of the United States Courthouse, 1301 

Clay Street, Oakland.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 16, 2015

______________________________________

DONNA M. RYU

United States Magistrate Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Donna M. Ryu

Case 4:15-cv-00182-DMR Document 14 Filed 03/16/15 Page 3 of 3