Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-02399/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-02399-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 660
Nature of Suit: Occupational Safety And Health
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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KATRI RILEY-LEE,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ORTIZ S. HERRON,

Defendant. /

KATRI RILEY-LEE

Plaintiff,

v.

IGCOR, et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

KATRI RILEY-LEE

Plaintiff.

v.

CHARLES MANSON, et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

No. C-10-02397 EDL

related to 

No. C-10-02399

related to

No. C-10-02400

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

RE: APPLICATIONS TO PROCEED IN

FORMA PAUPERIS

On May 28, 2010, Plaintiff Katri Riley-Lee filed the above-captioned complaints and

Applications to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. On June 14, 2010, the Court issued an order relating

Plaintiff’s cases. Plaintiff did not respond to the Clerk’s Notice regarding consent or declination to a

magistrate judge in any of the cases. Because Plaintiff has not consented to this Court’s jurisdiction

Case 3:10-cv-02399-SI Document 8 Filed 07/22/10 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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), the Court issues this Report and Recommendation and will reassign

these cases to a district judge. For the reasons set forth below, the Court recommends granting

Plaintiff’s Applications to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and dismissing Plaintiff’s complaints with

prejudice. 

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), “[a]ny court of the United States may authorize the

commencement . . . of any suit . . . without prepayment of fees and costs or security therefor, by a

person who makes affidavit that he is unable to pay such costs or give security therefor.” In

reviewing an application to proceed in forma pauperis, the court may dismiss a case sua sponte if the

court determines that the party applying for in forma pauperis status has filed a frivolous action. 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1989). Under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915, a frivolous claim is one that lacks an arguable basis in either law or fact. Neitzke v.

Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). Moreover, according to Neitze, a court may dismiss an in

forma pauperis complaint sua sponte under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) when the claim is “fantastic or

delusional. . . .” Neitze, 490 U.S. at 328. Dismissal on these grounds is often made sua sponte prior

to the issuance of process, so as to spare prospective defendants the inconvenience and expense of

answering such complaints. Id. at 324. 

Plaintiff’s Applications to Proceed In Forma Pauperis adequately allege Plaintiff’s poverty. 

Plaintiff states that she is not employed, that she receives $550.00 per month in disability and

receives money from a car accident in the amount of $4,000, and that she has $2,000 in the bank. 

Plaintiff’s monthly expenses of approximately $1,080 exceed her income. Therefore, Plaintiff

qualifies for In Forma Pauperis status, and her Applications should be granted. 

However, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the Court is required to dismiss an action that

fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Here, both grounds are met. The entirety of

Plaintiff’s complaint in Riley-Lee v. Herron, C-10-2397 EDL states: “Brain video game used to

change retired ownership and possible frame former pure manson with murder.” The entirety of

Plaintiff’s complaint in Riley-Lee v. Igcor, C-10-2399 EDL states: “Radio assassination against

thallion [sic] president. Now a retired citizen. Work of Hatred. Racial Bulb in Brain. Squeezed

stomach. Wired tooth. Foot problem also a brain surge. Sexually exploited on radio. Also PAH

Case 3:10-cv-02399-SI Document 8 Filed 07/22/10 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

has controlling on Entraprevdiae [sic], has a controlling point.” The entirety of Plaintiff’s

complaint in Riley-Lee v. Charles Manson, C-10-2400 EDL states: “Discrimination of possibly

video game in brank [sic]. Removal of ownership of LAPD and federal troop world. Also world

weapon causing a world of hatred. Very deadly.” 

Plaintiff’s complaints do not provide a basis for federal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331

or for diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. In sum, Plaintiff’s complaints fail to include a

“short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief” as required by

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2). Taken as a whole, Plaintiff’s complaints fail. Accordingly,

the Court should dismiss Plaintiff's complaints with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 

Any party may serve and file specific written objections to this recommendation within

fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P.

72(b); Civil Local Rule 72-3. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the 

right to appeal the District Court's order. 

Dated: July 22, 2010 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:10-cv-02399-SI Document 8 Filed 07/22/10 Page 3 of 3