Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_10-cv-01329/USCOURTS-cand-4_10-cv-01329-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Personal Injury

---

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

G:\JLALL\CASES\CIVIL\10-1329. REF-REASSIGN.wpd Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PRESTON VINES,

Plaintiff,

v.

LINDA SPECHT, et al., 

Defendants.

________________________________/

No. C 10-1329 JL

ORDER REFERRING CASE FOR

REASSIGNMENT

Plaintiff filed an Application to file his complaint in forma pauperis, “IFP,” without

paying the filing fee of $350. Such an application is governed by 28 U.S.C. §1914 and

1915, which provide:

"The clerk of each district court shall require the parties instituting any civil action,

suit or proceeding in such court . . . to pay a filing fee of $350 . . . ." 28 U.S.C. §

1914(a). In the alternative, "[a]ny court of the United States may authorize the

commencement . . . of any suit . . . without prepayment of fees and costs or security

therefor, by a person who makes affidavit that he is unable to pay such costs or give

security therefor." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). The court "may dismiss the case if the allegation

of poverty is untrue, or if satisfied that the action is frivolous or malicious." Id. at § 1915(d). 

This allows the court to review prior to service all claims brought pursuant to section

Case 4:10-cv-01329-SBA Document 4 Filed 04/01/10 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

G:\JLALL\CASES\CIVIL\10-1329. REF-REASSIGN.wpd Page 2 of 3

1915(d) and dismiss those claims that are frivolous or malicious. Denton v. Hernandez, 

504 U.S. 25, 27 (1992). 

The Court examined Plaintiff’s affidavit and finds that he satisfies the indigence

prong of §1915. He has $700 in monthly income from Social Security benefits and $700 in

monthly expenses, so he is unable to pay the $350 filing fee.

However, Plaintiff’s claim is factually frivolous. He alleges that his doctor at Kaiser

Permanente in Vallejo, Dr. Linda Specht, has placed a computer chip in his left knee in

2004, as well as placing other chips in the bodies of individuals who died as a result 

and he fears that he himself will die. He says the computer chip in his knee has cords and

the cords touch his brain. He repeats several times that placing such chips constitutes

premeditated murder. He claims the cords stop his breath, preventing him from talking, are

saying they are going to kill him, and are making him hit himself in the face. He asks the

Court to run a “visual and audio cyber.net” image of his body to verify the placement of the

computer chips and after that to award him millions or even billions of dollars in damages.

Dismissal Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)

Once a claim is filed in forma pauperis, it must be dismissed prior to service of

process if it is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks monetary damages

from defendants who are immune from suit. See 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2); see also Franklin

v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1226-27 (9th Cir. 1984).

Dismissal for frivolousness prior to service under section 1915 (d) is appropriate

where no legal interest is implicated: where a claim is premised on an indisputably

meritless legal theory or is clearly lacking any factual basis. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S.

319, 327 (1989). A complaint lacks an arguable basis in law only if controlling authority

requires a finding that the facts alleged fail to establish an arguable legal claim. Guti v.

INS, 908 F.2d 495, 496 (9th Cir. 1990) (per curiam).

While the facts alleged in a complaint should generally be accepted as true for

purposes of entering a judgment on the pleadings, clearly baseless factual contentions may

be dismissed as frivolous under section 1915. Denton v. Hernandez, supra, 504 U.S. at 32.

Case 4:10-cv-01329-SBA Document 4 Filed 04/01/10 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

G:\JLALL\CASES\CIVIL\10-1329. REF-REASSIGN.wpd Page 3 of 3

Section 1915(d) also accords judges the unusual power to pierce the veil of the complaint's

factual allegations and dismiss those claims whose factual contentions are clearly

baseless. Denton, Id. at 31. Examples are claims describing fantastic or delusional

scenarios with which federal district judges are all too familiar. To pierce the veil of the

complaint's factual allegations means that 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. But, this initial assessment of the IFP plaintiff's factual

allegations must be weighted in favor of the plaintiff. A frivolousness determination cannot

serve as a fact-finding process for the resolution of disputed facts. 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. But the complaint may not be dismissed simply because the court finds the

plaintiff's allegations unlikely or improbable. Id. at 32-33. 

 In this case, there is no possible conclusion except that Plaintiff is delusional, and

on that basis his application to file IFP should be denied as his Complaint is wholly factually

frivolous. However, Plaintiff has not consented to the jurisdiction of this Court under 28

U.S.C. §636(c) and therefore this Court cannot deny his application. Tripati v Rison, 847

F2d 548 (9th Cir. 1988). Accordingly, the matter is hereby referred for reassignment, with

the recommendation that Plaintiff’s IFP application be denied, and his Complaint dismissed

with prejudice prior to service.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 1, 2010 

__________________________________ JAMES LARSON

United States Magistrate Judge

G:\JLALL\CASES\CIVIL\10-1329. REF-REASSIGN.wpd

Case 4:10-cv-01329-SBA Document 4 Filed 04/01/10 Page 3 of 3