Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-01854/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-01854-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AROR-ARK O’DIAH,

Plaintiff,

 v.

JUDGE WILLIAM DUANE BENTON, JUDGE KENT A.

JORDAN, JUDGE RONALD LEE GILMAN, JUDGE

TREVOR NEIL MCFADDEN, SEARS ROEBUCK AND

COMPANY, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE,

NASSAU COUNTY, PORT AUTHORITY POLICE

OFFICER THOMAS EDDINGS, PORT AUTHORITY OF

NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY, COMMISSIONER

KENNETH LIPPER AND

SUPERINTENDENT/DIRECTOR MICHAEL A.

FEDORKO, ACTING COMMISSIONER ANTHONY J.

ANNUCCI, AND NEW YORK STATE, DISTRICT

ATTORNEY RICHARD BROWN AND NEW YORK

CITY, JUDGE ARTHUR COOPERMAN, JUDGE

RANDALL ENG, JUDGE SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN,

JUDGE DENIS JACOBS, COURT CLERK CATHERINE

O’HAGAN WOLF, ACTING DIRECTOR AND

CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU,

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE, CEO

MEGAN J. BRENNAN AND INSPECTOR GENERAL

FOR THE UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE AND

THE UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, INTERNAL

REVENUE SERVICE COMMISSIONER JOHN

KOSKINEN AND INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE,

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT

OF EDUCATION, NEW YORK CITY HEALTH AND

HOSPITALS CORPORATION, KINGS COUNTY

HOSPITAL CENTER, QUEENS HOSPITAL CENTER,

ELMHURST HOSPITAL CENTER, EXECUTIVE

DIRECTOR HENCH AND DIRECTOR KOLLER LEE

No. C 19-01854 WHA

ORDER RE MOTION

TO DISMISS

Case 3:19-cv-01854-WHA Document 10 Filed 05/15/19 Page 1 of 4
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

AND THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, HERTZ

CORPORATION RENT A CAR, JERRY OLIK MARK

AND HEREFORD INSURANCE COMPANY, USMAN

PASHA AND LT WHEELS AND BECKMAN COULTER

INC., UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, HEWLETPACKARD a/k/a HP, JP MORGAN CHASE & CO. a/k/a

JP MORGAN CHASE CORPORATE a/k/a CHASE

BANK, WESTERN UNION, STAPLES STORE #0065

a/k/a STAPES, INC. a/k/a STAPLES CORPORATION,

STEPHEN BILKIS AND MEIR MOZA,

Defendants, Named and Sued in their

individual and in their Official Capacities.

 /

INTRODUCTION

In this civil rights action, plaintiff has filed an in forma pauperis application and a

complaint with over one hundred allegations. For the reasons below, plaintiff’s application to

proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED, and this case is DISMISSED without prejudice.

STATEMENT

In April 2019, plaintiff Aror-Ark O’Diah, requesting to proceed pro se, brought this

action against forty-six defendants, among whom are federal judges, heads of federal agencies,

employees of state and local agencies in New York, and various corporate entities. This case

was related to C 19-0816 by April 29 order of the undersigned (Dkt. No. 8). That case has a

Referral and Recommendation from a Magistrate Judge, so is dealt with in a separate order.

Here, plaintiff alleges wide-ranging conspiracy against him, from judges retaliating for

judicial misconduct complaints he filed, to Sears and Roebuck encouraging a fellow employee

to assault plaintiff, to false imprisonment for failing to pay child support. Plaintiff alleges

improper calculations of his Social Security benefits, being set on fire while he was in prison,

being refused medical treatment due to his lack of health insurance, and a litany of other

disjointed allegations (Dkt. No. 1). Plaintiff filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis

(Dkt. No. 4). 

ANALYSIS

Congress’ goal in creating the in forma pauperis statute was to put indigent plaintiffs

on a similar footing with paying plaintiffs. Congress recognized, however, that a litigant whose

Case 3:19-cv-01854-WHA Document 10 Filed 05/15/19 Page 2 of 4
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

filing fees and court costs are assumed by the public, unlike a paying litigant, lacks an economic

incentive to refrain from filing frivolous, malicious, or repetitive lawsuits. To prevent such

abusive litigation, 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(e)(2) requires federal courts to dismiss a claim filed

in forma pauperis if the allegation of poverty is untrue, or if satisfied that the action is frivolous

or malicious.

In defining the meaning of “frivolous” under Section 1915(e)(2)(B), the United States

Supreme Court has held that the in forma pauperis statute gives judges “the unusual power to

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

contentions are clearly baseless . . . describing fantastic or delusional scenarios, claims with

which federal district judges are all too familiar.” Nietzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327

(1989). “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 . . . [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.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32–33 (1992).

Rule 8(a) requires that a complaint contain a short and plain statement of the grounds

upon which the court’s jurisdiction depends, a short and plain statement of the claim showing

that the pleader is entitled to relief, and a demand for judgment for the relief the pleader seeks. 

The purpose of the minimum standard of Rule 8 is to give fair notice to the defendants of the

claim being asserted, sufficient to prepare a responsive answer, to prepare an adequate defense

and to determine whether the doctrine of res judicata applies. 

In this complaint, plaintiff throws a wide net, naming dozens of defendants, including

federal judges, the United States Department of State, the United States Postal Service, the

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Internal Revenue Service, United Parcel Service,

Hewlett-Packard, Chase Bank, Staples Store, Western Union, such disparate individuals as a

driver who allegedly hit plaintiff with his car, and health providers in several locations where

plaintiff sought treatment on multiple occasions. The allegations are inter-woven between

unconnected defendants over nearly two decades. In the 146 sequentially-numbered paragraphs

Case 3:19-cv-01854-WHA Document 10 Filed 05/15/19 Page 3 of 4
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

4

of the complaint, not a single viable legal claim is plainly alleged, and no defendant reasonably

could be expected to prepare a proper response to this pleading in its current form.

Plaintiff provides no support for his allegations other than his characterizations and

therefore his broad conspiracy allegations fail. As drafted, the complaint does not comply with

Rule 8(a) and it will be dismissed without prejudice.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, plaintiff’s claims against all defendants are DISMISSED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 14, 2019. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:19-cv-01854-WHA Document 10 Filed 05/15/19 Page 4 of 4