Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01199/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01199-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983cv Civil Rights Act - Civil Action for Deprivation of 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MONTOREY D. HARPER,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 16cv1199-WQH-BLM

ORDER

v.

US DOJ; LOS ANGELES POLICE

DEPT.; LONG BEACH POLICE

DEPARTMENT; ARCO GASOLINE,

Defendant.

HAYES, Judge:

On May 19, 2016, Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a Complaint (ECF No.

1) and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) (ECF No. 2). 

I. Motion to Proceed IFP

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); S.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 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).

In an affidavit, Plaintiff states that his gross pay is $4,025 per month. (ECF No.

2 at 1). He states that he has $280 in his bank account. Id. at 2. He states that his

monthly expenses are $4,400. Id. After considering Plaintiff’s motion and affidavit the

- 1 - 16cv1199-WQH-BLM

Case 3:16-cv-01199-WQH-BLM Document 3 Filed 05/27/16 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

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. § 1951(a). 

II. Initial Screening of Complaint

A complaint filed by any person proceeding IFP 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)(I)-(iii); 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,

97 (1976). “[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). 

In order to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege facts to

show: (1) the violation of a right secured by the constitution or laws of the United

States, and (2) that the alleged deprivations were committed by persons acting under the

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

In this case, Plaintiff alleges that “the city of Long Beach used its police officer

to come inside a store” and harass him “about a drink [he] attempted to purchase . . . .” 

(ECF No. 1 at 3). Plaintiff alleges that “the entire ordeal shows that the US has criminal

enterprises that involves police officers.” Id. Plaintiff alleges that the police officer

was influenced by “satanic devil worshiping.” Id. Plaintiff claims are grounded on

emotional pain, suffering, mental anguish, and inconvenience without offering any

allegations to support his claims. Id. at 4-7. Plaintiff requests relief in a sum far

exceeding a trillion dollars. 

The Court cannot clearly determine under what legal theory Plaintiff’s cause of

action arises. To the extent that Platiniff asserts a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983,

- 2 - 16cv1199-WQH-BLM

Case 3:16-cv-01199-WQH-BLM Document 3 Filed 05/27/16 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

Plaintiff has not stated a claim upon which § 1983 relief can be granted because he has

not alleged a violation of a Constitutional right. Further, Plaintiff cannot state a claim

against the Untied States Department of Justice or ARCO Gasoline because neither of

those entities acts “under the color of state law.” The Court concludes that Plaintiff

fails to state a claim. 

III. Conclusion

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

is granted (ECF No. 2). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint is dismissed. 

DATED: May 27, 2016

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

- 3 - 16cv1199-WQH-BLM

Case 3:16-cv-01199-WQH-BLM Document 3 Filed 05/27/16 Page 3 of 3