Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00778/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00778-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983pr Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

18-CV-778 JLS (BGS)

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

ALFREDO ZAVALA ODANGA,

Booking #17113332,

Plaintiff,

v.

DEPUTY EMMENS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 18-CV-778 JLS (BGS)

ORDER: (1) DISMISSING CIVIL 

ACTION AS FRIVOLOUS 

PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915A; 

AND (2) DENYING MOTION TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 

AS MOOT

Alfredo Zavala Odanga (“Plaintiff”), currently detained at San Diego Central Jail 

(“SDCJ”) and proceeding pro se, has filed an action entitled “Defendants Answer to 

Complaint.” (“Compl.,” ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff has not prepaid the $400 filing fee required 

to commence civil action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a), instead has he filed a Motion to 

Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). (See ECF No. 2.)

I. Screening of Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A

The Court may sua sponte screen Plaintiff’s Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915A because at the time of filing Plaintiff was, and remains, “incarcerated or detained 

in any facility [because he] is accused of, convicted of, sentenced for, or adjudicated 

delinquent for, violations of criminal law or the terms or conditions of parole, probation,

pretrial release, or diversionary program.” Olivas v. Nev. ex rel. Dept. of Corr., 856 F.3d 

Case 3:18-cv-00778-JLS-BGS Document 3 Filed 05/18/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

18-CV-778 JLS (BGS)

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

1281, 1284 (9th Cir. 2017) (citing 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(h), 1915A(c); 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(h)). 

Section 1915A “mandates early review—‘before docketing [] or [] as soon as 

practicable after docketing’—for all complaints ‘in which a prisoner seeks redress from a 

governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.’” Chavez v. 

Robinson, 817 F.3d 1162, 1168 (9th Cir. 2016). The mandatory screening provisions of 

§ 1915A apply to all prisoners, no matter their fee status, who bring suit against a 

governmental entity, officer, or employee. See, e.g., Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 446–

47 (9th Cir. 2000). “On review, the court shall . . . dismiss the complaint, or any portion of 

the complaint,” if it “(1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief 

may be granted; or (2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 

relief.” Olivas, 856 F.3d at 1283 (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)). “The purpose of § 1915A 

is to ‘ensure that the targets of frivolous or malicious suits need not bear the expense of 

responding.’” Nordstrom v. Ryan, 762 F.3d 903, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Wheeler 

v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., 689 F.3d 680, 681 (7th Cir. 2012)).

A pleading is “factual[ly] frivolous[]” if “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.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 25–26 (1992). Section 

1915 gives courts “the unusual power to pierce the veil” of a Complaint like Plaintiff’s and 

to “dismiss those claims whose factual contentions are clearly baseless.” Neitzke v. 

Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989). Clearly baseless factual allegations include those “that 

are ‘fanciful,’ ‘fantastic,’ and ‘delusional.’” Denton, 504 U.S. at 32–33 (quoting Neitzke, 

490 U.S. at 325, 327–28).

Plaintiff invokes no clear arguable legal basis for his suit, and some of his factual 

allegations are plainly frivolous. Id.; see also O’Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 617 (9th 

Cir. 1990) (“An in forma pauperis complaint is frivolous if it has no arguable basis in fact 

or law.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). A majority of Plaintiff’s claims 

are difficult to decipher but he appears to allege that San Diego County Sheriff Department 

Deputies were “kidnapping pretty homeless white girls in Lakeside” in 2016. (Compl. 2.) 

Case 3:18-cv-00778-JLS-BGS Document 3 Filed 05/18/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

18-CV-778 JLS (BGS)

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

The majority of Plaintiff’s claims are so disjointed that it is extremely difficult to discern 

the nature of his claims.

While conclusory, disjointed, and incoherent, a majority of Plaintiff’s factual 

allegations appear to be grounded in delusion, are facially irrational, and wholly incredible. 

Therefore, his Complaint demands sua sponte dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915A(b)(1). See Denton, 504 U.S. at 25–26; Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 324.

III. Conclusion and Order

For the reasons discussed, the Court:

1) DISMISSES this civil action as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915A(b)(1);

2) DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP as moot, (ECF No. 2); 

3) CERTIFIES that an IFP appeal would not be taken in good faith pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); and

4) DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to enter a final judgment of dismissal and 

to close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 18, 2018

Case 3:18-cv-00778-JLS-BGS Document 3 Filed 05/18/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3