Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01972/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01972-0/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GARY E. KING,

Inmate No. 14740027,

Civil

No.

14cv1972 H (JMA)

Plaintiff,

ORDER: 

(1) DISMISSING CASE UNDER 

28 U.S.C. § 1915A

(2) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO PROCEED IN

FORMA PAUPERIS AS MOOT

[Doc. No. 9.]

 vs.

UNNAMED DEFENDANTS,

Defendant.

Gary E. King (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner currently incarcerated at San Diego

Central Jail, and proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983. (Doc. No. 1.) On August 29, 2014, the Court sua sponte dismissed the action for

failure to either pay the $400 civil filing and administrative fee or submit a motion to

proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) and granted Plaintiff 45 days leave to either pay the

filing and administrative fee in full or “file a motion to proceed IFP that includes a

certified copy of his trust account statement for the 6-month period preceding the filing

of his Complaint.” (Doc. No. 2.) On September 25, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion to

proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. No. 5.) The Court denied the motion because Plaintiff

did not submit a certified copy of his trust account statement. (Doc. No. 8.) The Court

-1- 14cv1972 H (JMA)

Case 3:14-cv-01972-H-JMA Document 10 Filed 10/31/14 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

dismissed the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). (Id.) The Court also explained its

obligation to screen the complaint to determine whether it was frivolous. (Id. at fn.1). 

On October 21, 2014, Plaintiff filed another motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc.

No. 9.) He included a copy of his trust account statement. (Id. at 4-6.) On sua sponte

screening, the Court dismisses the case under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Accordingly, the

Court denies the motion to proceed in forma pauperis as moot. 

Discussion

I. Initial Screening per 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)

Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court

reviews complaints 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.” See

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), (c). The Court conducts this review regardless of whether the

prisoner prepays filing fees or moves to proceed in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915A(a). The Court must sua sponte dismiss prisoner complaints, or any portions

thereof, that are frivolous, malicious, or fail to state a claim upon which relief may be

granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b); Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 446-47 (9th Cir. 2000).

Plaintiff’s complaint is difficult to understand and contains statements that are

delusional. For example, Plaintiff alleges that on “June 3, 2009, I was driving down E.

8th Street in National City when I was struck by a thermal nuclear physics blast from a

U.S. Govt. satellite.” (Doc. No. 1 at 1.) Plaintiff alleges that he was also “struck by a

US Govt or military high-tech invisible weapon.” (Id. at 2.) A complaint is frivolous

“where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S.

319, 325 (1989). Here, Plaintiff’s claims are frivolous under § 1915A because they lack

even “an arguable basis either in law or in fact,” and appear “fanciful,” “fantastic,” or

“delusional.” Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 325, 328. Accordingly, the Court dismisses

Plaintiff’s complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

/ / /

-2- 14cv1972 H (JMA)

Case 3:14-cv-01972-H-JMA Document 10 Filed 10/31/14 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

II. Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis

Because the Court dismisses the complaint, Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma

pauperis is moot. 

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the Court dismisses Plaintiff’s complaint as frivolous. 

As a result, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis as moot. 

The Court directs the clerk to close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 31, 2014 ________________________________

 MARILYN L. HUFF, District Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

-3- 14cv1972 H (JMA)

Case 3:14-cv-01972-H-JMA Document 10 Filed 10/31/14 Page 3 of 3