Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00650/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00650-1/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANDREAU GERALD WILSON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-07-0650 DFL KJM P

vs.

PEOPLE OF THE STATE

OF CALIFORNIA, ORDER AND

Defendant. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a state prison inmate proceeding pro se with a civil rights action under

42 U.S.C. § 1983. He has submitted an affidavit requesting leave to proceed in forma pauperis

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule

72-302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

The in forma pauperis statute permits federal district courts to

authorize the commencement, prosecution or

defense of any suit, action or proceeding, civil or

criminal . . . without prepayment of fees or security

therefor, by a person who submits an affidavit that

includes a statement of all assets such prisoner

possesses that the person is unable to pay such fees

or give security therefor. Such affidavit shall state

the nature of the action . . . and affiant’s belief that

the person is entitled to redress.

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). A court may deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis if it appears from

Case 2:07-cv-00650-JKS-KJM Document 10 Filed 06/15/07 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

2

the face of the proposed complaint that the action is frivolous. Minetti v. Port of Seattle, 152

F.3d 1113 (9th Cir. 1998). In determining whether an action is frivolous, the court may “pierce

the veil of the complaint’s factual allegations and dismiss those claims whose factual contentions

are clearly baseless.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989). Such allegations include

those “describing fantastic or delusional scenarios, claims with which federal district judges are

all too familiar.” Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 328; see also Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33

(1992) (finding of frivolousness appropriate when allegations are irrational or wholly

incredible).

With its prior order, the court had the Clerk send plaintiff the form for filing a

civil rights action. Plaintiff has returned the form with his name and that of the defendant listed,

but with every other question answered with the word “none.” For example, in the section

entitled “Statement of the Claim,” plaintiff has written “none.” 

Accompanying the “complaint” is an incomprehensible pleading, asking for a

court order “for requesting of a matter . . . must be carried out by police or sheriff’s department

or by the Department of Justice.” This request does not comply with Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 7(b), for it does not “state with particularity the grounds therefor.” Rule 7 is designed

“to afford notice of the grounds and prayer of the motion to both the court and the opposing

party, providing that party with a meaningful opportunity to respond and the court with enough

information to process the motion correctly.” People United For Children, Inc. v. City of New

York, 108 F.Supp.2d 275, 301, n.2 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) (internal quotations, citation omitted). 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s May 11, 2007 motion for a court order

is denied. 

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma

pauperis be denied and the action be dismissed 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty

Case 2:07-cv-00650-JKS-KJM Document 10 Filed 06/15/07 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

3

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951

F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: June 15, 2007. 

2

wils0650.friv

Case 2:07-cv-00650-JKS-KJM Document 10 Filed 06/15/07 Page 3 of 3