Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-06659/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-06659-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALEXANDER PERGAMENSCH,

Plaintiff, No. C 06-6659 PJH

v. ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT

AND DENYING REQUEST TO 

NOVATO POLICE DEPARTMENT, PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

Defendant.

_______________________________/

The court has received plaintiff’s complaint and application to proceed in forma

pauperis, both filed in this court on October 25, 2006. Because there is no legal basis for

plaintiff's complaint, the Court denies plaintiff’s application and dismisses the complaint sua

sponte.

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). For purposes of 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, 109 S. Ct. 1827, 1831-32 (1989). Dismissal on these grounds are 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., 490 U.S. at 324, 109 S. Ct.

at 1831. Where a litigant is acting pro se and the court finds the litigant's complaint

Case 4:06-cv-06659-PJH Document 4 Filed 01/08/07 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

frivolous within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the court must give the litigant

notice of the deficiencies of the complaint and an opportunity to amend before final

dismissal, unless it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be

cured by amendment. Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987); Eldridge v.

Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1135-37 (9th Cir. 1987).

Plaintiff’s complaint proceeds against the the Novato Police Department (“NPD”), the

City of Novato, the Marin County District Attorney, and the County of Marin. See

Complaint, p.1. The complaint appears to stem from the actions of these defendants in

connection with plaintiff’s apparent detention at San Francisco International Airport after

plaintiff’s October 25, 2005 arrival from Russia. See id. In connection with plaintiff’s

alleged detention on that date, plaintiff asserts: (1) that the NPD falsely arrested and

imprisoned him; (2) that NPD based its decision to arrest plaintiff on fraudulent information,

and failed to investigate the underlying circumstances that would have disclosed the

fraudulent nature of the information; (3) that NPD failed to provide plaintiff with proper

medical care; (4) that the NPD subsequently defamed plaintiff an article that was

subsequently printed in the Marin Independent Journal; (5) that the article, which

referenced plaintiff as a “Russian,” is “discriminating;” and (6) that the Marin County District

Attorneys’ office maliciously prsecuted a resulting case against plaintiff. See id. 

These allegations are insufficient to demonstrate that the federal courts have subject

matter jurisdiction over plaintiff’s claims. The federal courts are only permitted to hear

disputes that arise from a violation of a federal law, or disputes between citizens of different

states with over $75,000 in dispute. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. As such, plaintiff must

demonstrate either that he and all defendants are citizens of different states, or that the

defendant(s) have violated his federal rights. 

Here, plaintiff nowhere includes allegations regarding the parties’ diversity, or the

amount in controversy. Nor does it appear that plaintiff would be able to properly invoke

diversity of citizenship, since plaintiff appears to be a California resident, as are all named

Case 4:06-cv-06659-PJH Document 4 Filed 01/08/07 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

defendants. See Complaint, p.1. Alternatively, while plaintiff generally states that his “civil

rights were continuously violated,” plaintiff nowhere provides any citation or reference to

any federal law in particular. Therefore, as currently pled, it is impossible for the court to

determine whether the federal courts are empowered to hear the instant dispute, either by

way of diversity jurisdiction, or federal question jurisdiction. In short, plaintiff has failed to

set forth "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to

relief", as required by Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

Accordingly, pursuant to its authority under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the court hereby

DISMISSES plaintiff's complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and because as such,

it is frivolous. However, the court will nonetheless allow plaintiff an opportunity to file an

amended complaint. For that amended complaint to be successful, plaintiff must

demonstrate a basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction, must allege separate causes of

action, must state a constitutional or statutory basis for each cause of action, and must

allege facts showing each defendant’s personal involvement in the wrongful act alleged in

each cause of action, as well as plaintiff’s harm or injury. Any amended complaint must be

filed no later than February 5, 2007.

If plaintiff fails to file the amended complaint by November 29, 2006, or if he files an

amended complaint not in accordance with the above instructions, the case will be

dismissed with prejudice. 

Because the court orders dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, plaintiff’s request

to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 8, 2007 ______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:06-cv-06659-PJH Document 4 Filed 01/08/07 Page 3 of 3