Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02106/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02106-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

I 

2 

3 

4 

6 

7 

8 

9 

11 

12 

13 

14 

16 

17 

18 

19 

21 

22 

23 

24 

26 

27 

28 

FILED 

SEP 2, 2011 

CLERK, U.S. DISTR~CT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

BY • DEPUTY 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

MUHAREM KURBEGOVICH, Civil No. II-CV-2106 BEN (RBB) 

CDCR #C-23700 

Plaintiff, ORDER: 

(1) SUA SPONTE DISMISSING 

vs. COMPLAINT AS FRIVOLOUS 

PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915A 

UNKNOWN FBI AGENTS IN SAN DIEGO, (2) DENYING MOTION TO PROCEED

IN FORMA PAUPERIS AS MOOT 

[Docket No.2] Defendants. 

Plaintiff Muharem Kurbegovich, currently incarcerated at Corcoran State Prison located in 

Corcoran, California and proceeding pro se, has filed a Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In 

addition, Plaintiff has filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis ("IFP"). 

I. Initial Screening per 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) 

The Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA"), 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, obligates the Court to review 

complaints filed by anyone "incarcerated or detained in any facility who is accused of, sentenced for, 

or adjudicated delinquent for, violations ofcriminal law or the terms or conditions ofparole, probation, 

pretrial release, or diversionary program," "as soon as practicable after docketing" and regardless of 

-1- llcv2106 BEN (RBB) 

Case 3:11-cv-02106-BEN-RBB Document 3 Filed 09/29/11 Page 1 of 3
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 

whether the prisoner prepays filing fees or moves to proceed IFP. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), (c). The 

Court must sua sponte dismiss prisoner complaints, or any portions thereof, which are frivolous, 

malicious, or fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 28 U .S.C. § 1915A(b); Resnick v. 

Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 446-47 (9th Cir. 2000). 

Plaintiffs Complaint is nearly incomprehensible and contains ramblings about being held as an 

"enemy combatant." (Compl. at 3.) He also claims that he issues orders for Charles Manson, whom he 

claims is the head ofthe Al Qaeda organization, to follow. (ld. at 3.) 

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

Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). Here, the Court finds Plaintiffs claims to be frivolous under 

§ 1915A because they lack even "an arguable basis either in law or in fact," and appear "fanciful," 

"fantastic," or "delusional." Id at 325, 328. Thus, the Court dismisses the entirety of Plaintiffs 

Complaint as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 

II. 	 Conclusion and Order 

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Plaintiffs Complaint is DISMISSED as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 

Moreover, because the Court finds amendment ofPlaintiffs claims would be futile at this time, leave 

to amend is DENIED. See Cahill v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 80 F.3d 336, 339 (9th Cir. 1996) (denial of 

leave to amend is not an abuse of discretion where further amendment would be futile); see also 

Robinson v. Cal. Bd. ofPrison Terms, 997 F. Supp. 1303, 1308 (C.D. Cal. 1998) ("Since plaintiff has 

not, and cannot, state a claim containing an arguable basis in law, this action should be dismissed 

without leave to amend; any amendment would be futile." (citing Newland v. Dalton, 81 F.3d 904, 907 

(9th Cir. 1996))). 

2. Further, this Court CERTIFIES that any IFP appeal from this Order would not be taken 

"in good faith" pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 

(1962); Gardner v. Pogue, 558 F.2d 548, 550 (9th Cir. 1977) (indigent appellant is permitted to proceed 

IFP on appeal only if appeal would not be frivolous). 

III 

III 

-2-	 llcv2106 BEN (RBB) 

Case 3:11-cv-02106-BEN-RBB Document 3 Filed 09/29/11 Page 2 of 3
5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

1 

2 

3 

4 

6 

7 

3. Plaintiffs Motion to Proceed IFP [Docket No.2] is DENIED as moot. 

The Clerk shall enter jUdgment for the Defendants and close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: Septembe~2011 

8 

9 

11 

12 

l3 

14 

16 

17 

18 

19 

21 

22 

23 

24 

26 

27 

28 

-3- llcv2106 BEN (RBB) 

Case 3:11-cv-02106-BEN-RBB Document 3 Filed 09/29/11 Page 3 of 3