Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01586/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01586-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 42:1983bv Bivens Non-Prisoner

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MONTOREY DANYELL HARPER,

Military Leader UNI Star General

Montorey LLC,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 17cv1586-WQH-KSC

ORDER

v.

US; NATO; and, UN,

Defendants.

HAYES, Judge:

On August 8, 2017, Plaintiff Montorey Danyell Harper initiated this action by

filing a complaint and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF Nos. 1, 2). 

I. Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

 All parties instituting a civil action, suit, or proceeding in a district court of the

United States, other than a petition for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of

$400.00. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); CivLR 4.5. An action may proceed despite a party’s

failure to pay only if the party is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). 

“To proceed in forma pauperis is a privilege not a right.” Smart v. Heinze, 347 F.2d

114, 116 (9th Cir. 1965).

After considering Plaintiff’s motion and affidavit, the Court determines that

Plaintiff cannot afford to pay the filing fee in this case and is eligible to proceed in

forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

- 1 - 17cv1586-WQH-KSC

Case 3:17-cv-01586-WQH-KSC Document 3 Filed 08/14/17 PageID.<pageID> 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

II. Initial Screening of the Complaint

A complaint filed by any person proceeding in forma pauperis pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1915(a) is also subject to mandatory review and sua sponte dismissal to the

extent it “is frivolous or malicious; fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted;

or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(B); see Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 

The standard used to evaluate whether a complaint states a claim is a liberal one,

particularly when the action has been filed pro se. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97,

106 (1976). However, even a “liberal interpretation . . . may not supply elements of the

claim that were not initially pled.” Ivey v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Alaska, 673

F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). “[P]ro se litigants are bound by the rules of procedure.” 

Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 54 (9th Cir. 1995). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8

provides that “[a] pleading that states a claim for relief must contain ... a short and plain

statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief....” Fed. R. Civ. P.

8(a)(2). “[A] plaintiff’s obligation to provide the grounds of his entitlement to relief

requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements

of a cause of action will not do.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)

(quotation omitted). 

The complaint states in part, that “SHAKERS ARE LYERS AND LITTER ALL

SOCIETIES” and 

THIS IS THE GOVERNMENT CLAIM FOR DISABILITY AND

CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES AS THES PEOPLE ARE ODD IN SOCIETY

AND APPEAR AS CRIMINALS BUT ARE. THIS MAENS THAT

THEY WANT YOU TO ONLY ASSUME BUT TO THEN BE

ASSUALTED BY THE REAL TRUE NATURE OF WHO THEY ARE

AND IT IS HELL. THIS MEANS IT IS HELL TO LIVE IN THE US

AND IT IS HELL TO LIVE IN THE WORLDS SOCIETIES. SO, THIS

IS SERIOUS AND ON PURPOSE AND INTENTIONAL. THEREFORE,

THE PLAINTIFF DEMANDS AN UNLIMITED AMOUNT. 

(ECF No. 1).

The Court has reviewed the allegations of the complaint and cannot determine

under what legal theory Plaintiff’s complaint arises. The Court concludes that the

- 2 - 17cv1586-WQH-KSC

Case 3:17-cv-01586-WQH-KSC Document 3 Filed 08/14/17 PageID.<pageID> 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

allegations of the complaint are vague and lack an arguable basis in law or fact. 

Plaintiff fails to allege “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to

relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662. 678 (2009)

(quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). The complaint is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(I).

IV. Conclusion

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis

is GRANTED. (ECF No. 2). 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the complaint is dismissed. (ECF No. 1). The

Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. 

DATED: August 14, 2017

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

- 3 - 17cv1586-WQH-KSC

Case 3:17-cv-01586-WQH-KSC Document 3 Filed 08/14/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3