Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-00462/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-00462-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Employment Discrimination

---

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KAROLINE NAUFAHU,

Plaintiff(s),

 vs.

BOARD OF TRUSTEES, SAN MATEO

COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT, et al.,

Defendant(s). /

Civ. No. 10-00462 MHP

ORDER DISMISSING

COMPLAINT AND

DENYING IN FORMA

PAUPERIS FILING

Plaintiff has filed this complaint alleging claims of discrimination of various forms under the

federal civil rights laws. She names as defendants the San Mateo Community College District, its

Chancellor, President and other officers, deans and faculty. It appears that her claims relate to

employment, but it is not clear whether she was employed by defendant District or was seeking

employment. The nature of her claims are not generally of a type recognized by the employment or

other civil rights laws since they primarily involve failure to include plaintiff in meetings or disputes

among students and failure to include certain classes in the College’s curriculum. 

Plaintiff does not allege that she has filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal

Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) nor does she allege that she has applied for and

been denied employment, been terminated from employment or had any other adverse action taken

against her in the context of her employment. Her relationship to the District is unclear. Plaintiff

Case 3:10-cv-00462-MHP Document 8 Filed 02/18/10 Page 1 of 3
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

also fails to allege under what federal statutes or constitutional provisions she brings her claims. For

all the troubles she has incurred she seeks “$80 Millions”.

Furthermore, the complaint in this case is somewhat incomprehensible. Despite the

recitation of a list of violations and offenses there is nothing that tells the court the nature of each,

the status of plaintiff with respect to the school, or how the claims come within protected coverage

under a federal statute or a constitutional provision. Plaintiff provides no short and plain statement

of any claim or a statement as to what relief she may be entitled to under federal law. In sum,

plaintiff states no basis for a cognizable federal claim. 

The district court may deny in forma pauperis status and dismiss a complaint sua sponte if

federal subject matter jurisdiction is lacking or if the complaint is frivolous. See 28 U.S.C.

§1915(e)(2). A complaint is frivolous if "it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact." Neitzke

v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989)(found to be superseded on other grounds by reason of

adoption of section 1915(e) which makes dismissal for failure to state a claim mandatory), see, e.g., 

Lopez v. G.A.Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126 (9thCir.2000); Cruz v. Gomez, I/O, 202 F.3d 593, 596

(2dCir.2000). 

Where a complaint fails to state "any [specific] constitutional or statutory right that was

violated, nor asserts any basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction", there is no "arguable basis in

law" under Neitzke and the court on its own initiative may decline to permit the plaintiff to proceed

and dismiss the complaint under section 1915(d). Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th

Cir. 1995). 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1915(e)(2) dismissal is mandatory, see Cruz v. Gomez, 202

F.3d at 596, where there is no basis in law for the claims asserted. Merely mentioning the

Constitution for federal civil rights laws without more is not sufficient to support a complaint. If the

pro se plaintiff can cure the factual allegations in order to state a claim, the court may give him or

her leave to do so. However, if repleading cannot cure the deficiencies the court may dismiss

without leave to amend and even dismiss with prejudice. See Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d at

1106.

Case 3:10-cv-00462-MHP Document 8 Filed 02/18/10 Page 2 of 3
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 3

The court fails to see how plaintiff could state any claim that would amount to a plausible

claim or one over which the court would have jurisdiction.

Therefore, the application to file in forma pauperis is DENIED and the complaint is

DISMISSED. If plaintiff wishes to file an amended complaint, she should inquire at the Clerk’s

Office of this court about services of the Pro Se Legal Assistant who may be able to help her. 

The Clerk of Court shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: February 17, 2010 

MARILYN HALL PATEL

United States District Court Judge

Case 3:10-cv-00462-MHP Document 8 Filed 02/18/10 Page 3 of 3