Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-02054/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-02054-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 18:1961 Racketeering (RICO) 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

C-08-2504 Referral for Reassignment Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MALINKA MOYE,

Plaintiff,

v.

NATE THURMOND,

Defendant.

________________________________/

No. C 08-2054 JL

REFERRAL FOR REASSIGNMENT

WITH RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff filed a complaint in this district, and an application to proceed in forma

pauperis, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915. Under that section, a litigant may file without paying

the filing fee on a showing of indigence and that the complaint is not frivolous. A claim filed

in forma pauperis must be dismissed prior to service of process if it is frivolous or malicious,

fails to state a claim or seeks monetary damages from defendants who are immune from

suit. See 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2); see also Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1226-27 (9th

Cir. 1984). A complaint is factually frivolous if the claims have no arguable legal basis in

fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324-28 (1989) In this case, there are no factual

contentions

Plaintiff appears to be indigent, being presently unemployed, despite stating a

previous gross income of $750,000. This amount is similar to the damage claim for

$749,000, so Plaintiff may be confused. Plaintiff indicates no employment, no real property,

Case 3:08-cv-02054-WHA Document 6 Filed 05/12/08 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

C-08-2504 Referral for Reassignment Page 2 of 2

an old car, and an empty bank account. The Court therefore finds that he satisfies the

indigence requirement of the statute.

However, the Court should find no basis for federal jurisdiction. Plaintiff and

defendant are both citizens of California, so there is no jurisdiction based on diversity.

Plaintiff in the complaint mentions “Racketeering Influenced Corrupt Organization,” but

alleges no facts whatever which would support such a claim, or indeed any claim. The

other causes of action, assault, libel, slander, “perjury act,” and California Penal Code

§118, are all subject to California law. Without any other basis of jurisdiction, under either

federal law or diversity, this Court would have no jurisdiction over the state law claims,

none of which are supported by any factual allegations.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s claim is legally frivolous, disqualifying him from waiver of the

filing fee as provided by 28 U.S.C. §1915. 

However, Plaintiff has not consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge, as

required by 28 U.S.C. §636(c). A magistrate judge may not deny an in forma pauperis

application without consent of the plaintiff. Tripati v. Rison, 847 F.2d 548 (9th Cir. 1988) .

This Court hereby refers this case for reassignment to a district court judge, with the

recommendation that the in forma pauperis application be denied and the complaint

dismissed without prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 12, 2008

__________________________________

 JAMES LARSON

 Chief Magistrate Judge

G:\JLALL\CHAMBERS\CASES\CIVIL\08-2054-ref-reassign.wpd

Case 3:08-cv-02054-WHA Document 6 Filed 05/12/08 Page 2 of 2