Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01979/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01979-0/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

17-cv-01979-JAH-BGS

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

Harper, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

US, et al. ,

Defendants.

Case No. 17-cv-01979-JAH-BGS

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT 

WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND 

AND DENYING AS MOOT 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA 

PAUPERIS

On September 27, 2017, Montorey Danyell Harper, a non-prisoner appearing pro 

se, and Montorey, LLC (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint against numerous 

Defendants, including, among others, the United States, the United Nations, New York, 

New York, NATO, San Diego, and the Secret Service. Plaintiffs’ complaint alleges claims 

of assault, harassment, and malpractice. Doc. No. 1. Plaintiffs concurrently filed a motion 

to proceed in forma pauperis. 

I. Legal Standard

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

United States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee. See

28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed despite a plaintiff’s failure to prepay the entire 

fee only if plaintiff 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).

Case 3:17-cv-01979-JAH-BGS Document 3 Filed 10/04/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

17-cv-01979-JAH-BGS

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

Notwithstanding payment of any filing fee or portion thereof, a complaint filed by 

any person seeking to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) is subject 

to a mandatory and sua sponte review and dismissal by the court to the extent it is 

“frivolous, malicious, failing to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeking 

monetary relief from a defendant immune to such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); 

Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2001)( “[T]he provisions of 28 U.S.C. 1915 

(e) )(2)(B) are not limited to prisoners.”); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th 

Cir. 2000) (en banc). 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) mandates that the Court reviewing a complaint 

filed pursuant to the in forma pauperis provisions of Section 1915 make and rule on its 

own motion to dismiss before directing that the complaint be served by the U.S. Marshal 

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(2). Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1127.

A complaint will be considered frivolous, and therefore, subject to dismissal under

Section 1915(e)(2)(B), “where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke

v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); see also Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33

(1992). The Supreme Court, however, has held that a federal court cannot properly sua

sponte dismiss an action commenced by an in forma pauperis applicant if the facts alleged

in the complaint are merely “unlikely.” Denton, 504 U.S. at 33. However, a complaint

may be properly dismissed sua sponte if the allegations are found to be “fanciful,”

“fantastic,” or “delusional,” or if they “rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly

incredible.” Id. (citing Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 325, 328). Moreover, if a case is classified

as frivolous, there is no reason to grant leave to amend because a frivolous case, by

definition, has no merit to the underlying action. Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1127 n.8.

II. Analysis

Plaintiffs’ allegations of assault, harassment, and malpractice by various 

governmental officials and entities clearly “rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly 

incredible.” See Denton, 504 U.S. at 33. Although in some cases it may be difficult to judge 

whether a plaintiff’s factual allegations are truly “delusional” or merely “unlikely,” this is 

not such a case. Although it is difficult for the Court to decipher, it appears that Plaintiff 

Case 3:17-cv-01979-JAH-BGS Document 3 Filed 10/04/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

17-cv-01979-JAH-BGS

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

alleges the Secret Service and government starting emailing and harassing Plaintiff. 

Plaintiff states that his complaint “focused on people unknown to the [P]laintiff doing 

things like interfering with emails and his surroundings...and warned the government that 

years of complaining already meant that defendants like the Mormons who can influence 

people where involve and politicians, such as Obama and business.” Plaintiff’s complaint 

is nearly indecipherable. Doc. No. 1.

Therefore, this Court finds Plaintiffs’ complaint is “frivolous” as that term is defined 

by the United States Supreme Court and, accordingly, dismisses the complaint without 

leave to amend. Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1127, n. 8. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ request to proceed 

in forma pauperis is moot.

III. Conclusion and Order

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. The instant complaint is sua sponte DISMISSED without leave to amend as 

frivolous; and 

2. Plaintiffs’ request to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED AS MOOT.

DATED: October 3, 2017

 

_________________________________

JOHN A. HOUSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:17-cv-01979-JAH-BGS Document 3 Filed 10/04/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3