Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-03717/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-03717-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
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

1

 One handwritten notation on the application appears to assert that plaintiff has, or is

entitled to “perpetual” in forma pauperis status.

2 This court is ordering reassignment to a District Court Judge because, absent consent

of all parties, a Magistrate Judge does not have authority to dismiss the case.

*E-FILED 10/10/07*

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

CHARLES IVIE, 

Plaintiff,

 v.

U.S. GOVERNMENT, et al.

Defendants. /

NO. C 07-03717 RS

ORDER THAT CASE BE

REASSIGNED AND

RECOMMENDATION THAT

CASE BE DISMISSED WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND

Plaintiff filed has filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis.

1

 Based on the

application and the file herein,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this case be reassigned to a District Court Judge2 with the

recommendation that the case be dismissed, with leave to amend. A federal court must dismiss an in

forma pauperis complaint if the complaint is: 1) frivolous; 2) fails to state a claim on which relief

may be granted; or seeks 3) monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 

See, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); see also Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324 (1989). 

Here, the basis of plaintiff’s claim is far from clear, but it appears that he believes he is

wrongfully being impeded from traveling to Canada as the result of his criminal record, and that

matters in the documentation of that record are factually incorrect. As a result, plaintiff has named

Case 5:07-cv-03717-JW Document 6 Filed 10/10/07 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

3

 Whether there would be any basis for federal jurisdiction over any such claim is also

highly questionable.

 

C 06-04954 RS 

2

as defendants the U.S. and Canadian governments, along with any number of governmental entities

and agencies. Plaintiff’s existing pleadings, which are largely handwritten and barely legible, are

insufficient to state a claim.

A district court must give a pro se litigant an opportunity to amend his or her complaint,

unless it is absolutely clear that no amendment could cure the defect. See, Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d

1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). Here, although it appears doubtful that all of the

governmental entities sued by plaintiff are subject to suit or would have any duty to him, it is at least

conceivable that plaintiff could be entitled to some form of relief if in fact some official records are

incorrect.3

 Accordingly, dismissal with leave to amend is recommended.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 10/9/07 

RICHARD SEEBORG

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:07-cv-03717-JW Document 6 Filed 10/10/07 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

 

C 06-04954 RS 

3

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT A COPY OF THIS ORDER WAS MAILED TO:

Charles Ivie

20 Helvic Avenue

Monterey, CA 93940 

Dated: October 10, 2007

 /s/ BAK 

Chambers of Magistrate Judge Richard Seeborg

Case 5:07-cv-03717-JW Document 6 Filed 10/10/07 Page 3 of 3