Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00270/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00270-0/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JERRY D. PROFFITT, 

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-07-0270 GEB KJM P

vs.

ATTY’S BURICK, et al., 

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner seeking relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In other

litigation in this court, he has submitted a request to proceed in forma pauperis. This proceeding

was referred to this court by Local Rule 72-302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

The in forma pauperis statute permits federal district courts to

authorize the commencement, prosecution or

defense of any suit, action or proceeding, civil or

criminal . . . without prepayment of fees or security

therefor, by a person who submits an affidavit that

includes a statement of all assets such prisoner

possesses that the person is unable to pay such fees

or give security therefor. Such affidavit shall state

the nature of the action . . . and affiant’s belief that

the person is entitled to redress.

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). A court may deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis if it appears from

the face of the proposed complaint that the action is frivolous. Minetti v. Port of Seattle, 152

Case 2:07-cv-00270-GEB -KJM Document 4 Filed 05/30/07 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

2

F.3d 1113 (9th Cir. 1998). In determining whether an action is frivolous, the court may “pierce

the veil of the complaint’s factual allegations and dismiss those claims whose factual contentions

are clearly baseless.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989). Such allegations include

those “describing fantastic or delusional scenarios, claims with which federal district judges are

all too familiar.” Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 328; see also Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33

(1992) (finding of frivolousness appropriate when allegations are irrational or wholly

incredible).

In Proffitt v. Garcia, Civ. No. S-06-2147 FCD KJM P, plaintiff made essentially

the same allegations as are included in this complaint, allegations which this court found did not

state a claim. In both cases, plaintiff faults various lawyers for their inaction when representing

plaintiff on criminal charges, and his ex-wife and one John Bishop for giving Mandora Proffitt a

sex game and letting boys into Mandora’s room. These claims, filed after this court has

determined that they were not cognizable in a civil rights action, are frivolous. 

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma

pauperis be denied and the action be dismissed. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

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

after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file 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. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153

(9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: May 29, 2007. 

2/prof0270.56

Case 2:07-cv-00270-GEB -KJM Document 4 Filed 05/30/07 Page 2 of 2