Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-01676/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-01676-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AARON JONAH ROSBERG, 

Plaintiff(s),

 vs.

SAN FRANCISCO SHERIFF'S DEP'T,

et al.,

Defendant(s). 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 10-1676 CRB (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiff, a prisoner at the San Francisco County Jail, has filed a pro se

civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that he is being attacked

on a daily basis by "the voice of God" or "similar technology" or "weapon."

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which

prisoners seek redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a

governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must identify cognizable

claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint

"is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be

granted," or "seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such

relief." Id. § 1915A(b). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri

v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

Case 3:10-cv-01676-CRB Document 5 Filed 04/27/10 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

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two 

elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States

was violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting

under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

B. Legal Claims

Section 1915A accords judges the unusual power to pierce the veil of the

complaint's factual allegations and dismiss as frivolous those claims whose

factual contentions are clearly baseless. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32

(1992). Examples are claims describing fantastic or delusional scenarios with

which federal district judges are all too familiar. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490

U.S. 319, 328 (1989). Generally speaking, a finding of factual frivolousness is

appropriate when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly

incredible, whether or not there are judicially noticeable facts available to

contradict them. See Denton, 504 U.S. at 32-33. 

Plaintiff's allegations that he is being attacked on a daily basis by "the

voice of God" or "similar technology" or "weapon" describes a delusional

scenario which will be dismissed under the authority of § 1915A(b). The facts

alleged rise to the level of the irrational or wholly incredible. See id.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the complaint is DISMISSED as factually

frivolous under the authority of 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). 

The clerk shall enter judgment in accordance with this order, terminate all

pending motions as moot, and close the file. 

SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 27, 2010 

CHARLES R. BREYER

United States District Judge

G:\PRO-SE\CRB\CR.10\Rosberg, A1.dismiss.wpd

Case 3:10-cv-01676-CRB Document 5 Filed 04/27/10 Page 2 of 2