Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00971/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00971-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:101 Copyright Infringement

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Jehovah J. God, Jesus J. Christ, William E.

Moore, and Jehovah Witness Foundation,

Inc. 

Plaintiff(s), 

vs.

Arizona State University,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 07-971-PHX-JAT

ORDER

In considering the motion to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court has concluded that

Plaintiff's complaint should be screened pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) before it is

allowed to be served. Therefore, the Court will do so in this order.

A. 28 U.S.C. § § 1915(e)(2)

Congress provided with respect to in forma pauperis cases that a district court

"shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines" that the "allegation

of poverty is untrue" or that the "action or appeal" is "frivolous or malicious,"

"fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted," or "seeks monetary

relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief." 28 U.S.C. §

1915(e)(2). While much of section 1915 outlines how prisoners can file

proceedings in forma pauperis, section 1915(e) applies to all in forma pauperis

proceedings, not just those filed by prisoners. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122,

1127 (9th Cir. 2000)("section 1915(e) applies to all in forma pauperis

complaints"). "It is also clear that section 1915(e) not only permits but

requires a district court to dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint that fails to

state a claim." Id. Therefore, this court must dismiss an in forma pauperis

complaint if it fails to state a claim or if it is frivolous or malicious. 

"[A] complaint, containing both factual allegations and legal conclusions, is

frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact." Neitzke v.

Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). Furthermore, "a finding of factual

Case 2:07-cv-00971-JAT Document 6 Filed 05/25/07 Page 1 of 2
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 -

frivolousness is appropriate when the facts alleged rise to the level of the

irrational or wholly incredible, whether or not there are judicially recognized

facts available to contradict them." Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33

(1992). "A case is malicious if it was filed with the intention or desire to harm

another." Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2005). 

Kennedy v. Andrews, 2005 WL 3358205, *2 (D. Ariz. 2005).

B. Plaintiff’s Complaint

Plaintiff's complaint in this case falls into the category of "the irrational or wholly

incredible." See Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992) (dismissal also appropriate

when the facts alleged are "clearly baseless," "fanciful," "fantastic," and/or "delusional.").

Plaintiff, God, claims that Defendant university is infringing his copyright by using his

"autobiography," namely, "Bible," without paying him royalties. Complaint at 2. Plaintiff

seeks 9.3 million dollars in damages. Id. at 1. The Court finds these allegations to rise to the

level of being both fanciful and factually frivolous; accordingly, the Court will dismiss the

Complaint without using the Marshals for service, nor putting Defendant to the task of

responding to the Complaint. Further, because the Court finds these factual allegations to

be incurable, the Court will not grant leave to amend. Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. #4) is denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Complaint is dismissed, with prejudice, for

the reasons stated herein and the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly.

DATED this 24th day of May, 2007.

Case 2:07-cv-00971-JAT Document 6 Filed 05/25/07 Page 2 of 2