Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02706/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02706-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983pr Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

18cv2706

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICKEY LOUIS ALFORD-MORRIS 

DAY, aka Rickey Louis Alford

CDCR #AY-2755

Plaintiff,

v.

BARACK OBAMA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 18-cv-2706-BAS-WVG

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION 

WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND

Rickey Louis Alford-Morris Day, also known as “Rickey Louis Alford,”

(“Plaintiff”), currently housed at the California Men’s Colony located in San Luis Obispo, 

California, and proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights complaint (“Compl.”) pursuant to 

42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff has not prepaid the civil filing fee required by 

28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); instead, he has filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) (ECF No. 2). For the reasons herein, the Court concludes 

that the Complaint is subject to sua sponte dismissal as frivolous and terminates the IFP 

motion as moot.

DISCUSSION

Even if Plaintiff had properly requested IFP status, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s 

Complaint is subject to sua sponte dismissal based on a mandatory pre-answer screening 

Case 3:18-cv-02706-BAS-WVG Document 3 Filed 12/03/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

18cv2706

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and § 1915A(b). Under these statutes, the Court must 

sua sponte dismiss a prisoner’s IFP complaint, or any portion of it, which is frivolous, 

malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks damages from defendants who are immune. See 

Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126–27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (discussing 28 U.S.C. §

1915(e)(2)); Rhodes v. Robinson, 621 F.3d 1002, 1004 (9th Cir. 2010) (discussing 28 

U.S.C. § 1915A(b)). “The purpose of [screening] is ‘to ensure that the targets of frivolous 

or malicious suits need not bear the expense of responding.’” Nordstrom v. Ryan, 762 F.3d 

903, 920 n.1 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Wheeler v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., 689 F.3d 

680, 681 (7th Cir. 2012)). This standard grants the court “the unusual power to 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). 

Consequently, “a court is not bound, as it usually is when making a determination based 

solely on the pleadings, to accept without question the truth of the plaintiff’s allegations.” 

Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32 (1992).

Clearly baseless factual allegations include those “that are ‘fanciful,’ ‘fantastic,’ and 

‘delusional.’” Denton, 504 U.S. at 32–33 (quoting Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 325, 327, 328 

(1989)). Accordingly, “a finding of factual frivolousness is appropriate when the facts 

alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible, whether or not there are 

judicially noticeable facts available to contradict them.” Id. at 33. These outlandish claims 

are those “with which federal district judges are all too familiar.” Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 328. 

Thus, district courts have dismissed as frivolous an assortment of complaints containing 

clearly baseless factual allegations. See, e.g., Frost v. Vasan, No. 16-cv-05883 NC, 2017 

WL 2081094, at *1 (N.D. Cal. May 15, 2017) (secret conspiracy involving a U.S. Senator, 

a university, and the CIA); Suess v. Obama, No. CV 17-01184-JAK (DTB), 2017 WL 

1371289, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 10, 2017) (conspiracy involving former President Barack 

Obama, the CIA, and the FBI); Demos v. United States, 2010 WL 4007527, at *2 (D. Ore. 

Oct. 8, 2010) (kidnapping involving law enforcement officers disguised as pirates).

The Complaint filed in this action is patently frivolous. Plaintiff alleges that former 

Case 3:18-cv-02706-BAS-WVG Document 3 Filed 12/03/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

18cv2706

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

President Barack Obama, former First Lady Michelle Obama, current Supreme Court 

Justice Clarence Thomas, and current U.S. Senator Kamala Harris advocate the Ku Klux 

Klan and alleges that they are “impersonating black” people but are in fact “Neo Nazi.” 

(Compl. at 2–3, 5.) He claims that “we’re not sure if their [sic] blacks, attacking everything 

thats [sic] black, anti-Africa.” (Id. at 8.) In addition, the Complaint contains myriad 

incoherent factual allegations, including allegations regarding a car repair shop, 

Mohammad Ali, copyright violations, and allegations against NBA players. (Id. at 9–17.) 

Plaintiff states inter alia that “[t]he U.S. Supreme Court should be abolished with all 

Federal Judges[.]” (Id. at 18.) Because the Complaint is frivolous, the Court does not grant 

Plaintiff leave to amend. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 n.8 (9th Cir. 2000) 

(“When a case may be classified as frivolous or malicious, there is, by definition, no merit 

to the underlying action and so no reason to grant leave to amend.”).

CONCLUSION & ORDER

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and § 1915A(b), the Court DISMISSES 

WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND this action on the grounds that it is frivolous. The 

Court TERMINATES AS MOOT Plaintiff’s IFP motion. (ECF No. 2.) The Clerk of the 

Court shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 3, 2018

Case 3:18-cv-02706-BAS-WVG Document 3 Filed 12/03/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3