Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-03810/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-03810-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
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

NOT FOR CITATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN R. PIERSON,

Plaintiff, No. C 06-3810 PJH

v. ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT

WITH PREJUDICE

Defendant.

_____________________________/

Plaintiff John R. Pierson, filed this action on June 19, 2006. Plaintiff seeks leave to

proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). Because the court finds that the complaint must be

dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the request for leave to proceed IFP is DENIED. 

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 IFP, the court may dismiss a case

sua sponte if the court determines that the party applying for IFP 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 (1989). Dismissal on

these grounds is often ordered sua sponte prior to the issuance of process, so as to spare

prospective defendants the inconvenience and expense of answering such complaints. Id.

at 324. Where a litigant is acting pro se and the court finds the litigant's complaint frivolous
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

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). 

Here, the court finds that the complaint is frivolous within the meaning of § 1915(e),

because it does not state an intelligible claim. Plaintiff has not stated a single fact in

support of the claim. He alleges only that “the State of California Employment

Development Department willingly committed the following crimes: Consorting with

organized criminals; allowing illegals (foreign illegal aliens) to collect unemployment

benefits under section/statute #470.”

Moreover, he has not stated the basis for the court’s jurisdiction, nor has he

identified any federal statute or constitutional provision upon which he can base a claim. 

The Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution bars from the federal courts

suits against a state by its own citizens, citizens of another state or citizens or subjects of

any foreign state. See Atascadero State Hosp. v. Scanlon, 473 U.S. 234, 241 (1985). 

Accordingly, the request to proceed IFP is DENIED, and the complaint is

DISMISSED. Because the court finds that no amendment can cure the deficiencies of the

complaint, the action is dismissed WITH PREJUDICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 13, 2006 

_________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge