Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01732/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01732-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

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 1

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ESTRELLA J. BENAVIDES,

Plaintiff(s),

 vs.

GEORGE W. BUSH, et al.,

Defendant(s). /

No. C-07-01732 MHP

ORDER DENYING IN

FORMA PAUPERIS

STATUS AND

DISMISSING

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff has filed a complaint consisting of declarations and a large three-ring binder

containing random documents, photos, newspaper clippings and other material. What she does not

file is an actual complaint setting forth in a short and plain statement what her claims are, the

grounds for jurisdiction and what relief she seeks, as required by Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure. Plaintiff also has filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis.

Plaintiff names as defendants the President of the United States, the Governor of California,

the District Attorney of San Mateo County and her husband. What these persons have to do with

each other is a mystery. Other than her husband, what the others have to do with plaintiff is equally

a mystery. Apparently some of plaintiff's grievances relate to proceedings in the Family Law

Department of the Superior Court for San Mateo County. To the extent that these proceedings are

the gravamen of plaintiff's complaint, this court lacks jurisdiction. Plaintiff's remedy is in the state

court and possibly the California Court of Appeals which reviews decisions of the Superior Court.

However, these are not the only problems with plaintiff's filing. The papers she has filed are 

incomprehensible and federal jurisdiction cannot be divined from them. The allegations and

Case 3:07-cv-01732-MHP Document 7 Filed 04/04/07 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

statements plaintiff makes in her papers are convoluted, rambling and incoherent. As far as the

court can tell plaintiff states no basis for a cognizable federal claim. 

The district court may deny in forma pauperis status and even where the filing fee is paid

dismiss a complaint sua sponte if federal subject matter jurisdiction is lacking or if the complaint is

frivolous. See 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2). 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)(found to be superseded on other

grounds by reason of adoption of section 1915(e) which makes dismissal for failure to state a claim

mandatory, see, e.g., Lopez v. G.A.Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126 (9thCir.2000); Cruz v. Gomez,

I/O, 202 F.3d 593, 596 (2dCir.2000)). 

Where a complaint fails to state "any constitutional or statutory right that was violated, nor

asserts any basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction", there is no "arguable basis in law" under

Neitzke and the court on its own initiative may decline to permit the plaintiff to proceed and dismiss

the complaint under section 1915(d). Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995). 

Furthermore, where the complaint alleges facts that are "clearly baseless", "fanciful", or

"delusional" it may be dismissed as frivolous. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 112 S.Ct. 1728,

1733 (1992)(also found superseded in that dismissal was within discretion of district court under

section 1915(d) and now, under section 1915(e)(2) dismissal is mandatory, see Cruz v. Gomez, 202

F.3d at 596). If the pro se plaintiff can cure the factual allegations in order to state a claim, the court

may give her leave to do so. However, if repleading cannot cure the deficiencies the court may

dismiss without leave to amend and even dismiss with prejudice. See Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d

at 1106.

For the reasons articulated above this court does not see how plaintiff could "amend" her

essentially non-existent complaint or modify and distill the papers she has filed into a complaint

over which this court would have jurisdiction. From a review of plaintiff's filing, the court doubts

that plaintiff could sufficiently allege a claim that would be comprehensible and within the court's

jurisdiction. 

Case 3:07-cv-01732-MHP Document 7 Filed 04/04/07 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

Therefore, in accordance with the foregoing, plaintiff's application to file her action in forma

pauperis is DENIED and, treating the papers she has filed as a complaint, her complaint is

DISMISSED under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

 ________________________

Date: April 3, 2007 

MARILYN HALL PATEL

District Judge

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Case 3:07-cv-01732-MHP Document 7 Filed 04/04/07 Page 3 of 3