Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02021/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02021-2/pdf.json

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

---

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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\LAB\11cv2021-Dismiss FAC.wpd -1- 11cv2021 LAB (BLM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAMUEL KENNETH PORTER,

CDCR #J-87467

Civil No. 11cv2021 LAB (BLM)

Plaintiffs, ORDER SUA SPONTE DISMISSING

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AS

FRIVOLOUS PURSUANT TO 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) & § 1915A

vs.

L.W. McEWEN; GARCIA;

MITCHELL; CORREA,

Defendants.

I. Procedural History

On September 1, 2011, Plaintiff, Samuel Kenneth Porter, currently incarcerated at

Calipatria State Prison located in Calipatria, California and proceeding pro se, filed an action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In his original Complaint, Plaintiff alleged that prison officials

had violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights by failing to process his administrative

grievances. In addition, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) [ECF

No. 2]. On November 14, 2011, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP but sua

sponte dismissed his Complaint for failing to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)

& 1915A(b). See Nov. 14, 2011 Order at 5-6.

Case 3:11-cv-02021-LAB-BLM Document 8 Filed 02/01/12 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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\LAB\11cv2021-Dismiss FAC.wpd -2- 11cv2021 LAB (BLM)

Plaintiff was granted leave to file an Amended Complaint in order to correct the

deficiencies of pleading identified by the Court. Id. On December 16, 2011, Plaintiff filed his

First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) in which he names new Defendants and claims factual

allegations that are entirely different from those alleged in his original Complaint. In addition,

Plaintiff has filed an Ex Parte Motion for Preliminary Injunction which the Court denied on

January 27, 2011.

II. Initial Screening per 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and § 1915A(b)

A. Standard of Review

The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) obligates the Court to review complaints

filed by all persons proceeding IFP and by those, like Plaintiff, who are “incarcerated or detained

in any facility [and] accused of, sentenced for, or adjudicated delinquent for, violations of

criminal law or the terms or conditions of parole, probation, pretrial release, or diversionary

program,” “as soon as practicable after docketing.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and § 1915A(b).

Under these provisions, the Court must sua sponte dismiss any IFP or prisoner complaint, or any

portion thereof, which is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or which seeks damages

from defendants who are immune. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and § 1915A.

Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint is difficult to discern but he appears to allege that

prison officials refuse to treat him for tapeworm. (See FAC at 3.) In addition, Plaintiff alleges

that a tapeworm “came out in the shower” with “whiskers.” (Id.) 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 Plaintiff’s 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.” Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 325, 328. 

III. Conclusion and Order

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint is DISMISSED as frivolous pursuant to 28

U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) & 1915A. Moreover, because the Court finds amendment of Plaintiff’s

claims would be futile at this time, leave to amend is DENIED. See Cahill v. Liberty Mut. Ins.

Case 3:11-cv-02021-LAB-BLM Document 8 Filed 02/01/12 Page 2 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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\LAB\11cv2021-Dismiss FAC.wpd -3- 11cv2021 LAB (BLM)

Co., 80 F.3d 336, 339 (9th Cir. 1996) (denial of a leave to amend is not an abuse of discretion

where further amendment would be futile); see also Robinson v. California Bd. of Prison 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).

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 31, 2012

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

Case 3:11-cv-02021-LAB-BLM Document 8 Filed 02/01/12 Page 3 of 3