Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07415/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07415-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

U

For the Northern District of California

NITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BETSY P. ELGAR

Plaintiff,

v.

LOUISE KING

Defendant.

_____________________________________/

No. C 06-07415 MHP

ORDER

On December 4 2006 plaintiff Betsy Elgar filed a pro se complaint and application to

proceed in forma pauperis. The court has reviewed plaintiff’s complaint and denies the application. 

The complaint in this action is incomprehensible and plaintiff's injury cannot be divined from

it. Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that various forms of mistreatment at the hands of defendant and at

least two other named individuals, including allegations of stolen property. This litany of claims

fails to provide defendant with adequate notice of the claims alleged against them. Fed. Rule Civ. P.

8(a) (requiring a “short and plain statement ” of plaintiff’s claims). Even under the liberal pleading

standards afforded pro se litigants, plaintiff must provide defendants with “notice of what [they]

allegedly did wrong.” Brazil v. United States Dept. of the Navy, 66 F.3d 193, 199 (9th Cir. 1995). 

A district court may deny in forma pauperis status and dismiss a complaint sua sponte if it 

determines that the action is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be

granted. See 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2).1

 A complaint is frivolous if “it lacks an arguable basis either in

law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). 

Case 3:06-cv-07415-MHP Document 4 Filed 01/09/07 Page 1 of 3
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

2

The court cannot decipher the facts from plaintiff's garbled complaint. As such, it cannot

determine whether the complaint has any basis in fact. Plaintiff's application to file this complaint in

forma pauperis is DENIED. The complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE under 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: _______________________________

MARILYN HALL PATEL

United States District Court Judge

Northern District of California

Case 3:06-cv-07415-MHP Document 4 Filed 01/09/07 Page 2 of 3
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

3

1. Section 1915(e)(2) is not limited to prisoners. Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845 (9th Cir.

2001). It applies to all litigants proceeding in forma pauperis. See id.; Benson v. O’Brian, 179 F.3d

1014, 1017 (6th Cir. 1999). 

ENDNOTES

Case 3:06-cv-07415-MHP Document 4 Filed 01/09/07 Page 3 of 3