Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00078/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00078-0/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

1

 Subsequent to filing, on January 23, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Change of Address which

indicates he has since been released from state custody and is currently living in San Francisco (ECF

No. 2). 

2

 In fact, Plaintiff is no longer entitled to proceed IFP while incarcerated due to his frivolous

litigation history. See, e.g., Bravo v. Schwarzenegger, et al., S.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 11cv0043 LAB

(BLM) (Jan. 14, 2011 Order denying IFP as barred by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and Dismissing Civil Action)

(ECF No. 3 at 4 (listing Plaintiff’s various “strikes” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)). Section 1915(g) of

1 12cv0078 JLS (NLS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VICTOR BRAVO,

CDCR #V-21456,

Civil No. 12cv0078 JLS (NLS)

Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL ACTION

AS FRIVOLOUS PURSUANT TO 

vs. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)

R. BENITEZ, Judge; 

J. BROWN, Governor; 

M. CATES, CDCR Director; 

D. PARAMO, Warden; 

LIGNELL, Correctional Counselor I; 

G. TERRELL, Correctional Officer; UNNAMED

CDCR EMPLOYEES,

Defendants.

On January 10, 2012, while he was incarcerated at the Richard J. Donovan Correctional

Facility in San Diego, California, Victor J. Bravo (“Plaintiff”) filed this civil rights action pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.1

Plaintiff prepaid the $350 filing fee mandated by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) to commence a civil

action; thus, while he is proceeding in pro se, he is not proceeding in forma pauperis (“IFP”)

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).2

 He has not, as of yet, effected service upon any party. See

Case 3:12-cv-00078-JLS-NLS Document 2 Filed 03/13/12 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 Title 28 of the U.S. Code, commonly known as the PLRA’s “three-strikes” provision, provides that

“[p]risoners who have repeatedly brought unsuccessful suits may be entirely barred from IFP status.”

Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1052 (9th Cir. 2007).

2 12cv0078 JLS (NLS)

Boudette v. Barnette, 923 F.2d 754, 757 (9th Cir. 1991) (absent a specific request and court order

that the U.S. Marshal effect service on their behalf pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(c)(3), persons who

prepay civil filing fees “remain[] responsible for timely service.”); Omni Capital Int’l, Ltd. v.

Rudolf Wolff & Co., 484 U.S. 97, 104 (1987) (“Before a . . . court may exercise personal jurisdiction

over a defendant, the procedural requirement of service of summons must be satisfied.”)

SUA SPONTE SCREENING PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)

Pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, however, the

Court is obligated to review civil actions 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). Because Plaintiff was a “prisoner” as defined by 28

U.S.C. § 1915A(c) at the time he filed this action, the Court must sua sponte dismiss his complaint,

or any portion thereof, which “seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a

governmental entity,” if it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be

granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), (b); Rhodes v. Robinson, 621 F.3d 1002, 1004 (9th Cir. 2010).

“To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the plaintiff must allege two elements: (1) that a

right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated; and (2) that the alleged

violation was committed by a person acting under color of state law.” Campbell v. Washington

Dep’t of Soc. Servs., __ F.3d __ , 2011 WL 5304109 at *4 n.5 (9th Cir. Nov. 7, 2011) (citing

Ketchum v. Alameda Cnty., 811 F.2d 1243, 1245 (9th Cir. 1987)).

Plaintiff’s Complaint is far from coherent but he appears to allege that Judge Benitez,

Governor Brown, and a host of California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation officials,

have entered into a vast “civil/criminal conspiracy to obstruct justice” and violate his civil rights by

“falsely” imprisoning him and “classifying [him] as a severely, violently, mentally ill convict”

“without a court of law trial.” (Compl. at 1, 3, 6.) Plaintiff claims that the “Court’s Order for [his]

Case 3:12-cv-00078-JLS-NLS Document 2 Filed 03/13/12 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

3 12cv0078 JLS (NLS)

imprisonment expired in February 2009,” but the “State of California is attempting to cause [his]

death so as to prevent [him] from (further) exposing” the conspiracy. Plaintiff cautions that already

mailed his complaint to the Law Offices which “represent Rolling Stone Magazine.” (Id. at 4-6.)

An action is frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) “where it lacks an arguable basis either

in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Lopez v. Dept. of Health Servs.,

939 F.2d 881, 882-83 (9th Cir. 1991). Here, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s suit lacks any arguable

basis in law, and is obviously frivolous under § 1915A(b)(1). Moreover, to the extent Plaintiff

alleges any facts at all, they appear “fanciful,” “fantastic,” and “delusional” and are “clearly

baseless.” Id. at 325, 328.

Moreover, because the Court finds amendment futile, 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 Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127

n.8 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (noting that if a claim or complaint is classified as frivolous, “there is

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

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

(1) Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). 

(2) The Court further CERTIFIES that no IFP appeal from this Order could 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).

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

DATED: March 13, 2012

Honorable Janis L. Sammartino

United States District Judge

Case 3:12-cv-00078-JLS-NLS Document 2 Filed 03/13/12 Page 3 of 3