Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-03204/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-03204-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 320
Nature of Suit: Assault, Libel, and Slander
Cause of Action: 28:1346 Tort Claim

---

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 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

FRANKLIN H. WRIGHT, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY, et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 15-cv-03204-JSW 

ORDER DENYING APPLICATION TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND 

DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED 

COMPLAINT 

Re: Docket No. 14 

Now before the Court is the application to proceed in forma pauperis filed by plaintiff 

Franklin H. Wright (“Plaintiff”) and Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint. A district court may 

deny in forma pauperis status and sua sponte dismiss an action under certain circumstances, 

including when the underlying complaint sought to be filed is frivolous or when it fails to state a 

claim upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); see also Cato v. United States, 

70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995). 

On July 30, 2015, the Court issued an Order dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint with leave to 

amend, because he had not complied with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), and had failed to 

set forth the grounds upon which this Court has jurisdiction, “a short and plain statement of the 

claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, ... and a demand for judgment for the relief the 

pleader seeks.” Specifically, it was not clear who Plaintiff was seeking to sue or what facts 

Plaintiff alleges occurred. 

In his First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff names the United States Department of 

Homeland Security, United States Department of Justice, Julie Horst, and Eric Lunson as 

Defendants. Plaintiff alleges that he brings this action, in part, as a counterclaim to a criminal 

case, United States v. Schwartz, 15-CR-351-MEJ, in which Plaintiff was charged with violating 41 

Case 4:15-cv-03204-JSW Document 18 Filed 08/20/15 Page 1 of 4
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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

C.F.R. section 102-74.385, Disobey Lawful Order (the “criminal case”).1 

Plaintiff asserts twelve claims for relief, including, inter alia, wrongful arrest against 

Officer Lunson, “assault by proxy” against Ms. Horst, violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth 

Amendments to the United States Constitution, and breach of contract and breach of fiduciary 

duty against the United States Department of Justice. Plaintiff has added several claims and some 

additional paragraphs that purport to set forth the facts underlying his claims. Plaintiff also 

attaches a written narrative of his version of events that occurred on March 13, 2015, which relate 

to his arrest and subsequent prosecution in the criminal case. With that exception, the rest of 

Plaintiff’s “allegations,” as in his original complaint, refer to other cases and filings in those cases. 

For example, with respect to allegations regarding alleged harassment, he refers to Wright v. 

United States, 13-5994-LB or refers to filings in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth 

Circuit, but does not specify exactly what facts or filings in those cases are pertinent to his claims 

in this case. (See, e.g., Compl. at 4:7-19.) 

Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint does not contain clear and concise factual statements 

to support his twelve claims for relief and, thus, still does not comply with the requirements of 

Rule 8. Cf. Cafasso v. General Dyanamics C4 Systems, Inc., 637 F.3d 1047, 1058-59 (9th Cir. 

2011) (upholding denial of leave to amend where amendment would have been futile because of 

“proposed pleading’s extraordinary prolixity”) (citing cases); McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 

1177-80 (9th Cir. 1996) (upholding dismissal for failure to comply with Rule 8(a) where 

complaint was “argumentative, prolix, replete with redundancy, and largely irrelevant”). “The 

propriety of dismissal for failure to comply with Rule 8 does not depend on whether the complaint 

is wholly without merit.” McHenry, 84 F.3d at 1179. Even if the factual elements of the cause of 

action are present, but are scattered throughout the complaint and are not organized into a “short 

and plain statement of the claim,” dismissal for failure to satisfy Rule 8 is proper. Id. at 1178. In 

addition, because Plaintiff has not included all of the allegations in his First Amended Complaint, 

 

1

 Based on the record in the criminal case, Ms. Horst is a law librarian at the United States 

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and Officer Lunson is a member of the Federal Protective 

Services. 

Case 4:15-cv-03204-JSW Document 18 Filed 08/20/15 Page 2 of 4
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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

and makes references to other cases and filings, it is impossible for the Court to discern whether it 

has jurisdiction over the claims, whether Plaintiff’s claims would be barred based on doctrines of 

immunity, whether Plaintiff may be collaterally estopped from asserting the claims or whether 

there is some other legal basis to conclude that Plaintiff’s claims are futile. 

For example, as noted, Plaintiff argues that he is asserting a “counter-claim” to the criminal 

case. According to the docket in that case, following a bench trial, Plaintiff was found guilty. See 

United States v. Schwartz, 15-CR-351, Docket No. 14. The record in the instant case suggests that 

Plaintiff may be attempting to challenge the outcome of the criminal case. This, however, is not 

the proper forum to do so. Further, Plaintiff makes a general reference to 42 U.S.C. section 1983 

in his list of claims for relief. To the extent he asserts a claim under Section 1983 or any tort 

claims against Ms. Horst and Officer Lunson that arise out of the incident on March 13, 2015, his 

claims also may be barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). In that case, the Supreme 

Court held that: 

in order to recover damages for allegedly unconstitutional 

conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions 

whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid, a 

§ 1983 plaintiff must prove that the conviction or sentence has been 

reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared 

invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or 

called into question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas 

corpus. 

Heck, 512 U.S. at 486-87. The principle enunciated in Heck has been applied to claims brought 

pursuant to the FTCA if, in order to prevail, a plaintiff would have to prove the invalidity of the 

underlying conviction. See Erlin v. United States, 364 F.3d 1127, 1132 (9th Cir. 2004); Parris v. 

United States, 45 F.3d 383, 384-85 (10th Cir. 1995) (granting summary judgment for defendant 

where plaintiff’s claim, although “couched in terms of negligence,” actually sought review of 

basis for his conviction). 

Similarly, it appears that Plaintiff may intend to assert claims against the individuals who 

prosecuted the criminal case. As noted, Plaintiff makes a passing reference to Section 1983. (See, 

e.g., Compl. at 6:9-10; Docket No. 17, Declaration of Franklin Wright, ¶¶ 35-39.) However, 

“[p]rosecutors are ... entitled to absolute immunity from section 1983 claims,” and thus at least 

Case 4:15-cv-03204-JSW Document 18 Filed 08/20/15 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

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 

som

107

DIS

to a

ref

for

sec

Sep

sha

Da

me of Plainti

75 (9th Cir. 

Accord

SMISSES th

amend. If P

ference plead

rth the facts t

cond amende

ptember 21, 

all dismiss th

IT IS S

ated: August 

iff’s claims m

1986) (citing

dingly, the C

he First Ame

laintiff choo

dings or filin

that support 

ed complaint

2015. If Pla

his action wi

SO ORDER

20, 2015 

may be barre

g Imbler v. P

ourt DENIE

ended Comp

oses to file a 

ngs in other c

the claims f

t and a renew

aintiff fails t

ith prejudice

RED. 

4

ed on that ba

Pachtman, 4

ES Plaintiff’s

plaint. The C

second ame

cases to supp

for relief in t

wed motion 

to file a seco

e. 

asis as well. 

424 U.S. 409

s motion to p

Court shall g

ended compl

port his factu

the body of h

to proceed i

ond amended

__

JE

Un

Ashelman v

9, 427 (1976)

proceed in fo

grant Plaintif

laint, he mus

ual allegatio

his pleading.

in forma pau

d complaint b

___________

EFFREY S. W

nited States D

v. Pope, 793

)). 

orma pauper

ff one final o

st do more th

ons. Rather, 

. Plaintiff m

uperis by no 

by that date,

__________

WHITE 

District Judg

 F.2d 1072, 

ris, and it 

opportunity 

han 

he must set 

may file a 

later than 

, the Court 

____ 

ge 

Case 4:15-cv-03204-JSW Document 18 Filed 08/20/15 Page 4 of 4