Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01639/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01639-0/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

YOUNG YIL JO,

Plaintiff,

v.

SIX UNKNOWN NAMES AGENTS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:06-CV-01639-AWI-WMW-P

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR

FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM,

FRIVOLOUSNESS, AND MALICIOUSNESS

(Doc. 1) 

ORDER THAT DISMISSAL COUNTS AS A

STRIKE PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(G)

Plaintiff Young Yil Jo (“plaintiff”) is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se. On November

15, 2006, plaintiff filed what purports to be a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a

governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The

Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally

“frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2).

A complaint, or portion thereof, should only be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon

which relief may be granted if it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts in

support of the claim or claims that would entitle him to relief. See Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467

U.S. 69, 73 (1984), citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957); see also Palmer v. Roosevelt

Lake Log Owners Ass'n, 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1981). In reviewing a complaint under this

standard, the Court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in question, Hospital Bldg.

Case 1:06-cv-01639-AWI-WMW Document 3 Filed 12/15/06 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 The Court takes judicial notice of its docket reflecting all actions filed by Young Yil Jo. 1

2

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).

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. The

critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully pleaded, has an arguable legal

and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1989); Franklin, 745 F.2d at

1227.

The test for maliciousness is a subjective one and requires the Court to “determine the . . .

good faith of the applicant.” Kinney v. Plymouth Rock Squab Co., 236 U.S. 43, 46 (1915); see

Wright v. Newsome, 795 F.2d 964, 968 n. 1 (11th Cir. 1986). A lack of good faith most commonly

is found in repetitive suits filed by plaintiffs who have used the advantage of cost-free filing to file

a multiplicity of suits. A complaint is malicious if it suggests an intent to vex defendants or abuse

the judicial process by relitigating claims decided in prior cases. Crisafi v. Holland, 655 F.2d 1305,

1309 (D.C. Cir. 1981); Phillips v. Carey, 638 F.2d 207, 209 (10th Cir. 1981); Ballentine v.

Crawford, 563 F.Supp. 627, 628-29 (N.D. Ind. 1983); cf. Glick v. Gutbrod, 782 F.2d 754, 757 (7th

Cir. 1986) (court has inherent power to dismiss case demonstrating "clear pattern of abuse of the

judicial process"). A lack of good faith or malice also can be inferred from a complaint containing

untrue material allegations of fact or false statements made with intent to deceive the court. See

Horsey v. Asher, 741 F.2d 209, 212 (8th Cir. 1984). 

To date, plaintiff has filed sixty-seven civil actions in the Eastern District of California. Not 1

a single action is proceeding forward on valid, cognizable claims. All but four actions have been

transferred or dismissed. Of the four actions still pending, three, including this one, were filed

within the past month. The fourth action is awaiting dismissal for failure to obey a court order. 

Case 1:06-cv-01639-AWI-WMW Document 3 Filed 12/15/06 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

3

Plaintiff’s complaint in this action is much like the majority of his other complaints, as it sets

forth only rambling, nonsensical, and disjointed words and sentences. For example, plaintiff’s

statement of claim is one long run-on sentence that reads, in part, “No total date in custody more than

one year, no federal civil action by a prisoner confined in a jail, prison, for mental, emotional injury

suffered while in custody, the writ of habeas corpus, the writ of mandamus order immediately release

from prison, the writ of stay all cases decision, transfer, rehearing, the writ of certiorari for a justice

of the Supreme Court of the United States, privileges, immunity, pardon, discharge, no entrapment

. . . .” (Doc. 1, pg. 1.) These phrases as set forth by plaintiff are utterly meaningless. Plaintiff is

harassing the Court by filing frivolous, malicious actions, and is abusing the judicial process. There

are no claims stated in the complaint and there is no jurisdictional basis set forth in the complaint.

Further, the complaints in the following seven cases numbers are virtually indistinguishable: 1:06-

CV-00751-AWI-LJO-P, 1:06-CV-00887-OWW-LJO-P, 1:06-CV-01266-OWW-DLB-P, 1:06-CV01349-OWW-LJO-P, 1:06-CV-01529-OWW-LJO-P, 1:06-CV-01639-AWI-WMW-P, and this case,

1:06-CV-01714-OWW-LJO-P. There can be no good faith basis for filing identical, nonsensical

complaints over the past six months. 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, this action is HEREBY DISMISSED, with prejudice, for

failure to state a claim, frivolousness, and maliciousness, and this dismissal SHALL count as a strike

against plaintiff under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 13, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01639-AWI-WMW Document 3 Filed 12/15/06 Page 3 of 3