Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01997/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01997-1/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL LA VANN PIERRE,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-07-1997 FCD GGH PS

vs.

CITRUS HEIGHTS POLICE DEPT., et al.,

Defendants. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se. Plaintiff has requested authority

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 to proceed in forma pauperis. This proceeding was referred to this

court by Local Rule 72-302(c)(21). Plaintiff has filed an in forma pauperis affidavit in which he

states that he is presently employed and that his take-home monthly earnings are $1,650.00. 

Pursuant to federal statute, a filing fee of $350.00 is required to commence a civil

action in federal district court. 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). The court may authorize the

commencement of an action “without prepayment of fees or security therefor” by an individual

who submits an affidavit evidencing an inability to pay such fees or give security therefor. 28

U.S.C. § 1915(a). Although plaintiff also states that his daughter is dependent on him for

support, and he contributes $425 per month for that support, he has made an inadequate showing

Case 2:07-cv-01997-FCD-GGH Document 5 Filed 04/15/08 Page 1 of 4
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

2

of indigency in the affidavit before the court. Plaintiff normally would be granted twenty days in

which to submit the appropriate filing fee to the Clerk of the Court; however, the court finds that

the action may not proceed upon the filed complaint. 

The federal in forma pauperis statute authorizes federal courts to dismiss a case if

the action is legally “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which relief may be

granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2). 

A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28

(9th Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an

indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke,

490 U.S. at 327.

A complaint must contain more than a “formulaic recitation of the elements of a

cause of action;” it must contain factual allegations sufficient to “raise a right to relief above the

speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, __ U.S. __, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1965 (2007). 

“The pleading must contain something more...than...a statement of facts that merely creates a

suspicion [of] a legally cognizable right of action.” Id., quoting 5 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal

Practice and Procedure 1216, pp. 235-235 (3d ed. 2004). In reviewing a complaint under this

standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in question, Hospital

Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hospital Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), construe the pleading in the light

most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor. Jenkins v.

McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). 

The complaint is 40 pages long and contains plaintiff’s version of the history of

the driver’s license, along with vague ramblings and tangential references to unrelated law. It is

not until page 13 that plaintiff alleges that on September 19, 2007, he was stopped by Citrus

Heights Police for an expired registration, and arrested for three outstanding warrants. Id. at 13-

Case 2:07-cv-01997-FCD-GGH Document 5 Filed 04/15/08 Page 2 of 4
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

3

14. Plaintiff was asked for his driver’s license but he responded that he did not need one. 

Plaintiff describes the arrest in which he alleges he was harassed, forced to be separated from his

personal property, thrown roughly on top of the trunk of the car, had his hands twisted in

handcuffs, and that a taser was pointed at him. Id. His claims, however, which do not appear

again until page 29, after 15 more pages of ramblings, are limited solely to his claimed

constitutional right to lawfully travel in his car without a license. Id. at 29, 31. Most of the 40

pages of ramblings discuss the right to drive without a license. Nowhere does plaintiff allege any

violations with respect to the search and seizure. 

Plaintiff does not allege any tenable basis for federal question jurisdiction. He

merely concludes violations of his constitutional rights. A simple reference to federal law does

not create subject-matter jurisdiction. Avitts v. Amoco Prod. Co., 53 F.3d 690, 694 (5th Cir.

1995). 

There is no substantive constitutional right to drive a vehicle. Miller v. Reed, 176

F.3d 1202, 1205-06 (9 Cir. 1999). Plaintiff has not alleged the specific amendment of the th

Constitution which he claims gives him this right. The right to drive may be limited by the

state’s police power. Lillios v. Justices of New Hampshire Dist. Court, 735 F. Supp. 43, 47

(D.N.H. 1990). In California, a person may not drive a vehicle without a valid driver’s license. 

Cal. Veh. Code § 12500. Plaintiff can not show that this law is unconstitutional. Amendment of

the complaint will not be permitted as no amendment can cure this defect.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma

pauperis is denied.

For the reasons stated herein, IT IS RECOMMENDED that this action be

dismissed with prejudice.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within

twenty days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file

Case 2:07-cv-01997-FCD-GGH Document 5 Filed 04/15/08 Page 3 of 4
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

4

written objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 

Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. 

DATED: 04/15/08

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:076 - Pierre1997.ifp.wpd

Case 2:07-cv-01997-FCD-GGH Document 5 Filed 04/15/08 Page 4 of 4