Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-04299/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-04299-0/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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSEPH ALLDREDGE,

Plaintiff,

v.

SHE D’EVIL KLINTON,

Defendant.

Case No. 16-cv-4299-TEH 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

Plaintiff, an inmate at Kern Valley State Prison, filed this 

pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is 

granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in a separate order. 

His complaint is now before the Court for initial screening 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 

I

Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of 

cases in which prisoners seek redress from a governmental entity 

or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 

1915A(a). The court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss 

the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint 

“is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which 

relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a 

defendant who is immune from such relief.” Id. § 1915A(b). 

Pleadings filed by pro se litigants, however, must be liberally 

construed. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010); 

Case 3:16-cv-04299-TEH Document 6 Filed 08/24/16 Page 1 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 

1990).

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must 

allege two essential elements: (1) that a right secured by the 

Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) 

that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under 

the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 

II

A

Plaintiff’s complaint is incomprehensible. He names as 

Defendants Hillary Clinton and President Obama. He seeks for 

them to be indicted for treason. He also presents other 

nonsensical conspiracy theories. 

B

A claim is frivolous if it is premised on an indisputably 

meritless legal theory or is clearly lacking any factual basis. 

See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989). Sections 

1915A and 1915(e)(2) accord judges the unusual power to pierce 

the veil of the complaint's factual allegations and dismiss as 

frivolous those claims whose factual contentions are clearly 

baseless. See Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32 (1992). 

Examples are claims describing fantastic or delusional scenarios 

with which federal district judges are all too familiar. See

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 328 (1989). 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. See Denton, 504 U.S. at 32. A 

Case 3:16-cv-04299-TEH Document 6 Filed 08/24/16 Page 2 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

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. See id. at 32-33. 

Plaintiff’s allegations and claims are meritless and 

frivolous, and fail to state a claim. Because no amount of 

amendment could cure the deficiencies in this complaint, the 

action is dismissed with prejudice.

III

For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby orders as 

follows:

1. Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice as 

frivolous and for failure to state a claim.

2. The Clerk shall close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 8/24/2016

________________________

THELTON E. HENDERSON

United States District Judge

G:\PRO-SE\TEH\CR.16\Alldredge4299.dis.docx

Case 3:16-cv-04299-TEH Document 6 Filed 08/24/16 Page 3 of 3