Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-03536/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-03536-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 240
Nature of Suit: Torts to Land
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

ROBERT CURTIS,

Plaintiff, No. C 06-3536 PJH

v. ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT

AND DENYING REQUEST TO 

DEPARTMENT OF INDIAN PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN

DEVELOPMENT, et al.,

Defendants.

_______________________________/

The court has received plaintiff’s complaint and application to proceed in forma

pauperis, both filed in this court on June 1, 2006. Because there is no legal basis for

plaintiff's complaint, the Court denies plaintiff’s application and dismisses the complaint sua

sponte.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), "[a]ny court of the United States may authorize the

commencement . . . of any suit . . . without prepayment of fees and costs or security

therefor, by a person who makes affidavit that he is unable to pay such costs or give

security therefor." In reviewing an application to proceed in forma pauperis, the court may

dismiss a case sua sponte if the court determines that the party applying for in forma

pauperis status has filed a frivolous action. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); Jackson v. Arizona,

885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1989). For purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915, a frivolous claim is

one that lacks an arguable basis in either law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319,

325, 109 S. Ct. 1827, 1831-32 (1989). Dismissal on these grounds are often made sua

sponte prior to the issuance of process, so as to spare prospective defendants the

inconvenience and expense of answering such complaints. Id., 490 U.S. at 324, 109 S. Ct.

Case 4:06-cv-03536-PJH Document 6 Filed 09/05/06 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

at 1831. Where a litigant is acting pro se and the court finds the litigant's complaint

frivolous within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the court must give the litigant

notice of the deficiencies of the complaint and an opportunity to amend before final

dismissal, unless it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be

cured by amendment. Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987); Eldridge v.

Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1135-37 (9th Cir. 1987).

Plaintiff’s complaint generally alleges that multiple defendants (approximately 60

individuals and entities) engaged in a conspiracy to defraud and murder plaintiff, in an

attempt to interfere with plaintiff’s possession of certain diamond and mineral claims in the

Canadian Arctic territory. See, e.g., Conspiracy to Defraud Robert Curtis by Murder and

Other Tactics (“Complaint”), at 10:14-16, 13:12-16, 17:3-9, 20:24-21:56, 23:7-8, 53:16-

55:10. Plaintiff asserts multiple causes of action against defendants, including claims for

constitutional due process violations, prosecutorial abuse, obstruction of justice, violation of

First Amendment and equal protection rights, false arrest and false imprisonment, violation

of Fourth Amendment search and seizure requirements, unlawful destruction of income,

and intentional and negligent infliction of emotional and physical injury. See id. at 84-99. 

Plaintiff also alleges numerous additional claims in passing, and seeks $1.3 billion in

damages. See id. at 99:21-25. 

Plaintiff’s complaint is virtually identical to an earlier action filed by plaintiff in this

district, Curtis v. Dep’t of Indian Affairs & Dev., C 06-944 MJJ. Indeed, the instant

complaint is an essentially verbatim duplication of the prior complaint, and differs only with

respect to minor differences in the number of defendants named. That earlier complaint

was dismissed by the court as baseless and frivolous, since the court found plaintiff’s

allegations to be “fanciful and fantastic,” and further found that plaintiff’s claims had

previously been litigated and dismissed in 18 prior suits before the district court in Oregon. 

See Order Denying Request to Proceed in Forma Pauperis at 2 (filed in C 06-944 MJJ). 

Given that the instant complaint “repeats pending or previously litigated claims,” and

Case 4:06-cv-03536-PJH Document 6 Filed 09/05/06 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

in view of the fact that such complaints are subject to dismissal as frivolous pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e), the court hereby finds plaintiff’s complaint frivolous. See, e.g., Cato v.

United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1005 n.1 (9th Cir. 1995). It is therefore DISMISSED with

prejudice. 

Because the court orders dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, plaintiff’s request

to proceed in forma pauperis is also DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 5, 2006 ______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:06-cv-03536-PJH Document 6 Filed 09/05/06 Page 3 of 3