Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05977/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05977-0/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 G:\PRO-SE\MJJ\CR.07\riches35.dsm.wpd

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JONATHAN LEE RICHES,

Plaintiff,

 v.

2007 OCEAN ISLE BEACH FIRE, et al.,

Defendants. ____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 07-5977 MJJ (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiff, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this pro se complaint against the

“2007 Ocean Isle Beach Fire,” Sigma Alpha Epsilon and Delta Delta Delta Sororities, Justin

Michael Anderson, Travis Lane Cale, Lauren Astrid Mahon, Cassidy Fae Pendly, William

Robert Rhea, Allison Christine Walden, and Emily Lauren Yelton. 

A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a prisoner seeks

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

1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any cognizable claims and dismiss any claims that

are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seek monetary

relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See id. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings

must, however, be liberally construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699

(9th Cir. 1988).

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). 

Case 3:07-cv-05977-MJJ Document 3 Filed 12/19/07 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

G:\PRO-SE\MJJ\CR.07\riches35.dsm.wpd 2

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 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 alleges that defendants were drinking and playing with matches, and that they

burned down a house in North Carolina. Plaintiff alleges that they were underage, and that

their actions have “offended” him. Plaintiff further claims that he is afraid defendants’

actions will “influence” other inmates in his prison to burn him in his cell. Plaintiff also

claims that because of defendants’ “arson,” plaintiff’s insurance rates will rise. Plaintiff

seeks an order compelling defendants not to drink any more and to pay plaintiff 25 million

dollars. As plaintiff’s allegations are clearly baseless, irrational or wholly incredible, the

complaint will be dismissed as frivolous under sections 1915A and 1915(e)(2).

For the foregoing reasons, this action is DISMISSED. 

The Clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 12/17/07 _____________________________

MARTIN J. JENKINS

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-05977-MJJ Document 3 Filed 12/19/07 Page 2 of 2