Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01500/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01500-0/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

 Plaintiff neither paid the $350.00 filing fee in full nor filed a completed application to proceed in forma 1

pauperis. In light of the nature of plaintiff’s claims, the Court deems it in the interest of conservation of judicial

resources to simply dismiss the action at this juncture rather than first attempt to obtain the filing fee or a completed

application prior to dismissal.

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HECTOR MANZANARES,

Plaintiff,

v.

FBI, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:07-cv-01500-LJO-SMS PC

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION, WITH

PREJUDICE, AS FRIVOLOUS

(Doc. 1)

ORDER THAT THIS DISMISSAL COUNTS

AS A STRIKE PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §

1915(G)

Plaintiff Hector Manzanares (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on October 15, 2007, and 1

alleges that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) in Washington, D.C. and defendant Flores

with the FBI in Sacramento “gross negligently” failed to respond to his letters. (Comp., § IV.)

Plaintiff further alleges that defendant Richardson, an attorney, violated an agreement “by attempting

to commit suicide as a malingerer.” (Id.) 

The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a

governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The

Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally

///

Case 1:07-cv-01500-LJO -SMS Document 4 Filed 10/18/07 Page 1 of 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

2

“frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). 

A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. Neitzke

v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th Cir. 1984).

The Court may dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an indisputably meritless legal

theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327. The critical

inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully pleaded, has an arguable legal and

factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1989); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227.

In this instance, the claims alleged in this action are frivolous as they present no basis upon

which relief may be granted under federal law. Accordingly, this action is HEREBY ORDERED

DISMISSED, with prejudice, as frivolous. This dismissal SHALL count as a strike pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1915(g).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 18, 2007 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-01500-LJO -SMS Document 4 Filed 10/18/07 Page 2 of 2