Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-00102/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-00102-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ESTRELLA J. BENAVIDES,

Plaintiff(s),

 vs.

GEORGE W. BUSH, et al.,

Defendant(s). /

No. C-08-0102 MHP

ORDER DENYING IN

FORMA PAUPERIS

STATUS AND

DISMISSING

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff has filed a complaint naming the same defendants she named in C-07-01732MHP,

which was dismissed sua sponte by this court by order dated April 3, 2007. This action was filed

and assigned to another Judge of this court on January 7, 2008, and he has referred the matter to this

judge for a determination of whether they are related pursuant to Civil Local Rule 3-12. This court

finds that the cases are related. 

Once again plaintiff makes scattered and incomprehensible allegations against the same

defendants, President George W. Bush, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, the District Attorney of

San Mateo County and her husband or former husband. Once again the complaint makes no sense

and she appends documents unrelated to each other which are inexplicable with respect to any of the

claims, at least insofar as this court can tell. Once again what these defendants have to do with each

other is a mystery. Once again, other than her husband, what the others have to do with plaintiff is

equally a mystery. 

It appears that some of plaintiff's grievances relate to proceedings wherein she was placed

under a conservatorship by the Superior Court for San Mateo County. To the extent that those

Case 3:08-cv-00102-MHP Document 8 Filed 01/18/08 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 2

proceedings are the gravamen of plaintiff's complaint, this court lacks jurisdiction. Plaintiff's

remedy is in the state court and possibly the California Court of Appeals which reviews decisions of

the Superior Court.

There is nothing in plaintiff's filing from which it can be determined that this court has

jurisdiction. As with her earlier case, the allegations and statements plaintiff makes in her papers are

convoluted, rambling and incoherent. As far as the court can tell plaintiff states no basis for a

cognizable federal claim. 

The district court may deny in forma pauperis status and even where the filing fee is paid

dismiss a complaint sua sponte if federal subject matter jurisdiction is lacking or if the complaint is

frivolous. See 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2). A complaint is frivolous if "it lacks an arguable basis either

in law or in fact." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989)(found to be superseded on other

grounds by reason of adoption of section 1915(e) which makes dismissal for failure to state a claim

mandatory, see, e.g., Lopez v. G.A.Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126 (9thCir.2000); Cruz v. Gomez,

I/O, 202 F.3d 593, 596 (2dCir.2000)). 

Where a complaint fails to state "any constitutional or statutory right that was violated, nor

asserts any basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction", there is no "arguable basis in law" under

Neitzke and the court on its own initiative may decline to permit the plaintiff to proceed and dismiss

the complaint under section 1915(d). Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995). 

Furthermore, where the complaint alleges facts that are "clearly baseless", "fanciful", or

"delusional" it may be dismissed as frivolous. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 112 S.Ct. 1728,

1733 (1992)(also found superseded in that dismissal was within discretion of district court under

section 1915(d) and now, under section 1915(e)(2) dismissal is mandatory, see Cruz v. Gomez, 202

F.3d at 596). If the pro se plaintiff can cure the factual allegations in order to state a claim, the court

may give her leave to do so. However, if repleading cannot cure the deficiencies the court may

dismiss without leave to amend and even dismiss with prejudice. See Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d

at 1106.

For the reasons articulated above this court does not see how plaintiff could "amend" her

Case 3:08-cv-00102-MHP Document 8 Filed 01/18/08 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

essentially non-existent complaint or modify and distill the papers she has filed into a complaint

over which this court would have jurisdiction. From a review of plaintiff's filing, the court doubts

that plaintiff could sufficiently allege a claim that would be comprehensible and within the court's

jurisdiction. 

Therefore, in accordance with the foregoing, the court finds that:

1) pursuant to Civil L.R. 3-12 this action is related to the earlier filed action of 

C-07-1732MHP and this action is reassigned to the undersigned judge;

2) plaintiff's application to file her action in forma pauperis is DENIED; and

3) plaintiff's complaint herein is DISMISSED under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

 ________________________

Date: January 17, 2008

MARILYN HALL PATEL

District Judge

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Case 3:08-cv-00102-MHP Document 8 Filed 01/18/08 Page 3 of 3