Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-03204/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-03204-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 320
Nature of Suit: Assault, Libel, and Slander
Cause of Action: 28:1346 Tort Claim

---

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 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

FRANKLIN H. WRIGHT, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY, et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 15-cv-03204-JSW 

ORDER DENYING APPLICATION TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND 

EX PARTE APPLICATION RE 

SERVICE AND DISMISSING SECOND 

AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH 

PREJUDICE 

Re: Docket Nos. 21, 23 

Now before the Court is the application to proceed in forma pauperis filed by plaintiff 

Franklin H. Wright (“Plaintiff”) and Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint. A district court may 

deny in forma pauperis status and sua sponte dismiss an action under certain circumstances, 

including when the underlying complaint sought to be filed is frivolous or when it fails to state a 

claim upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); see also Cato v. United States, 

70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995). 

On August 20, 2015, the Court issued an Order dismissing Plaintiff’s First Amended 

Complaint leave to amend, because he had not complied with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) 

Specifically, the Court noted that Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint does not contain clear and 

concise factual statements to support his twelve claims for relief and, thus, still does not comply 

with the requirements of Rule 8. Instead of including allegations in the body of his pleading, 

Plaintiff made references to other cases and filings, which made it impossible for the Court to 

discern whether it had jurisdiction over the claims, whether Plaintiff’s claims would be barred 

based on doctrines of immunity, whether Plaintiff may be collaterally estopped from asserting the 

claims or whether there was some other legal basis to conclude that Plaintiff’s claims are futile, 

Case 4:15-cv-03204-JSW Document 25 Filed 08/31/15 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

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 

suc

pro

For

Co

ple

the

con

DIS

Pla

F.3

hav

Mc

com

if f

and

sat

reg

Da

ch as whethe

osecutorial im

rma Pauperi

Plaintif

urt’s directio

eading. For t

e Court DEN

The Co

ncludes that 

SMISSES, W

aintiff’s Seco

3d 1047, 105

ve been futil

cHenry v. Re

mply with R

factual eleme

d are not org

isfy Rule 8 i

In light

garding servi

IT IS S

ated: August 

er his claims 

mmunity. (S

s and Dismi

ff’s Second A

on that he m

these reason

NIES Plaintif

ourt has given

any further 

WITH PREJ

ond Amende

58-59 (9th C

le because of

enne, 84 F.3d

Rule 8 does n

ents of the c

ganized into 

is proper). 

t of this rulin

ice. The Cou

SO ORDER

31, 2015 

would be ba

See generally

ssing First A

Amended Co

must set forth

ns, and for th

ff’s renewed

n Plaintiff tw

attempts to a

JUDICE, the

ed Complain

ir. 2011) (up

f “proposed 

d 1172, 1177

not depend on

ause of actio

a “short and

ng, the Court

urt shall ente

RED. 

2

arred by Hec

y Docket No

Amended Co

omplaint suf

h the facts tha

he reasons se

application 

wo opportun

amend woul

e Second Am

nt. Cf. Cafas

pholding den

pleading’s e

7-80 (9th Cir

n whether th

on are presen

d plain statem

t DENIES, A

er judgment

ck v. Humpr

o. 18, Order 

omplaint (“A

ffers from th

at support th

et forth in the

to proceed i

nities to amen

ld be futile. 

mended Com

sso v. Genera

nial of leave 

extraordinary

r. 1996) (“pr

he complaint

nt, but are sc

ment of the c

AS MOOT, P

, and the Cle

__

JE

Un

rey, 512 U.S

Denying Ap

August 20, 20

hese same de

he claims for

e Court’s Au

in forma pau

nd his claim

Accordingly

mplaint. , and

al Dyanamic

to amend w

y prolixity”)

ropriety of d

t is wholly w

cattered thro

claim,” dism

Plaintiff’s Ex

erk shall clo

___________

EFFREY S. W

nited States D

. 477 (1994)

pplication to

015 Order”)

efects, despit

r relief in the

ugust 20, 20

uperis. 

ms in this case

y, the Court 

d it DISMISS

cs C4 System

where amendm

) (citing case

dismissal for

without merit

ughout the c

missal for fail

Ex Parte appl

se this file. 

__________

WHITE 

District Judg

), or 

o Proceed in 

.) 

te the 

e body of his

15 Order, 

e, and it 

SES 

ms, Inc., 637

ment would 

es); 

r failure to 

t” and even 

complaint 

lure to 

lication 

____ 

ge 

s

Case 4:15-cv-03204-JSW Document 25 Filed 08/31/15 Page 2 of 2