Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02030/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02030-0/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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\BTM\11cv2030-Dsm no ifp & frivolous.wpd. -1- 11cv2030 BTM (PCL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IMHOTEP JORDAN, Jr., 

aka JOHN JORDAN,

CDCR #C-71742,

Civil No. 11cv2030 BTM (PCL)

Plaintiff, ORDER: 

(1) DISMISSING CIVIL ACTION

FOR FAILING TO PAY FILING

FEES AND FOR FAILING TO

MOVE IN FORMA PAUPERIS; AND

(2) DISMISSING ACTION AS

FRIVOLOUS PURSUANT TO 28

U.S.C. § 1915A

 vs.

ROGER T. BENITEZ,

Defendant.

 

Plaintiff, currently incarcerated at Calipatria State Prison, in Calipatria, California, and

proceeding pro se, has filed a civil action entitled “Instrument of Clarification of the Private

Legal Process” [ECF No. 1]. 

I. FAILURE TO PAY FILING FEE OR REQUEST IFP STATUS

Any party instituting a civil action, suit or proceeding in a district court of the United

States, other than a writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of $350. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1914(a). An action may proceed despite a party’s failure to pay only if the party is granted

leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See Andrews v.

Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 2007); Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th

Case 3:11-cv-02030-BTM-PCL Document 2 Filed 09/09/11 Page 1 of 3
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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\BTM\11cv2030-Dsm no ifp & frivolous.wpd. -2- 11cv2030 BTM (PCL)

Cir. 1999). However, Plaintiff has not prepaid the $350 filing fee required to commence a civil

action; nor has he submitted a Motion to Proceed IFP. Therefore, the case must be dismissed

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a).

II. Initial Screening per 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)

The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, obligates the Court to

review complaints filed by anyone “incarcerated or detained in any facility who is accused of,

sentenced for, or adjudicated delinquent for, violations of criminal law or the terms or conditions

of parole, probation, pretrial release, or diversionary program,” “as soon as practicable after

docketing” and regardless of whether the prisoner prepays filing fees or moves to proceed IFP.

See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), (c). The Court must sua sponte dismiss prisoner complaints, or any

portions thereof, which are frivolous, malicious, or fail to state a claim upon which relief may

be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b); Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 446-47 (9th Cir. 2000).

While Plaintiff’s action is far from clear, Plaintiff is apparently seeking to sue a United

States District Judge for unspecified reasons. Plaintiff refers to himself as a “free born living

breathing flesh and blood neter [god] created sovereign sentient being” and seeks to “clarif[y]

the private legal process.” (Compl. at 1.) A complaint is frivolous “where it lacks an arguable

basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). Here, the Court

finds Plaintiff’s claims to be frivolous under § 1915A because they lack even “an arguable basis

either in law or in fact,” and appear “fanciful,” “fantastic,” or “delusional.” Neitzke, 490 U.S.

at 325, 328. Thus, the Court dismisses the entirety of Plaintiff’s Complaint as frivolous pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

II. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the reasons set forth above, the Court hereby:

(1) DISMISSES this action sua sponte without prejudice for failing to pay the $350

filing fee or file a Motion to Proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a) and 1915(a); and

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that:

(2) Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

Moreover, because the Court finds amendment of Plaintiff’s claims would be futile at this time,

Case 3:11-cv-02030-BTM-PCL Document 2 Filed 09/09/11 Page 2 of 3
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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\BTM\11cv2030-Dsm no ifp & frivolous.wpd. -3- 11cv2030 BTM (PCL)

leave to amend is DENIED. See Cahill v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 80 F.3d 336, 339 (9th Cir.

1996) (denial of a leave to amend is not an abuse of discretion where further amendment would

be futile); see also Robinson v. California Bd. of Prison Terms, 997 F. Supp. 1303, 1308 (C.D.

Cal. 1998) (“Since plaintiff has not, and cannot, state a claim containing an arguable basis in

law, this action should be dismissed without leave to amend; any amendment would be futile.”)

(citing Newland v. Dalton, 81 F.3d 904, 907 (9th Cir. 1996)).

(3) Further, this Court CERTIFIES that any IFP appeal from this Order would not

be taken “in good faith” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). See Coppedge v. United States, 369

U.S. 438, 445 (1962); Gardner v. Pogue, 558 F.2d 548, 550 (9th Cir. 1977) (indigent appellant

is permitted to proceed IFP on appeal only if appeal would not be frivolous).

(4) The Clerk of Court shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 9, 2011

Honorable Barry Ted Moskowitz

United States District Judge

Case 3:11-cv-02030-BTM-PCL Document 2 Filed 09/09/11 Page 3 of 3