Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01829/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01829-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

GREGORY M. RICE,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 10-CV-1829-LAB-RBB

ORDER DISMISSING CASE

vs.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,

Defendant.

Pending before the Court is Mr. Rice’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

I. IFP Motion

All parties instituting a civil action in a district court of the United States, except for

habeas petitioners, must pay a filing fee of $350. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). A party is

excused from paying the fee, however, if the Court grants leave to proceed IFP pursuant to

28 U.S.C. 1915(a). Mr. Rice claims that he is a freelance journalist who recently completed

a book on the issues raised by his lawsuit. He states no income from this work, however,

and instead claims he receives $220 per month in “General Relief.” He also claims to have

no checking account, no savings account, and no assets of value. His Motion to Proceed

In Forma Pauperis is therefore GRANTED.

II. Initial Screening

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the Court must screen each civil action commenced

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) and dismiss the action if the Court finds it is frivolous or

- 1 -

Case 3:10-cv-01829-LAB-RBB Document 7 Filed 03/28/12 Page 1 of 2
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

malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief

from an immune defendant. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 45

(9th Cir. 2001) (“[T]he provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) are not limited to prisoners.”);

Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) “not

only permits but requires” the court to sua sponte dismiss an IFP complaint that fails to state

a claim).

Mr. Rice’s original complaint was a mere paragraph of grievances, accompanied by

approximately 20 seemingly unrelated pages that it appears he printed off of the internet. 

His amended complaint is better, but still woefully inadequate. The Court has no clear sense

of what Mr. Rice’s claims are about, or why he has named all of the Defendants that he has.

The Court therefore finds that it does not pass the screening required by § 1915(e)(2)(B). 

It is frivolous and, as such, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

This action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 26, 2012

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

- 2 -

Case 3:10-cv-01829-LAB-RBB Document 7 Filed 03/28/12 Page 2 of 2