Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02204/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02204-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1983 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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CLIFFORD L. SASSELLI,

Plaintiff, No. S-06-2204 GEB CMK 

vs.

JIM PENA, et al., 

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is proceeding in this action without counsel. Plaintiff has requested

authority pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 to proceed in forma pauperis. This proceeding was

referred to this court by Local Rule 72-302(c)(21).

Plaintiff has submitted the affidavit required by § 1915(a)(1). Plaintiff avers that

his only month income is approximately $500 in disability and that he sometimes earns money

from working as an independent contractor. Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma

pauperis will be granted. 

The determination that plaintiff may proceed in forma pauperis does not complete

the required inquiry. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the court is directed to dismiss the case

at any time if it determines the allegation of poverty is untrue, or if the action is frivolous or

malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from

a defendant who is immune from such relief. Pro se pleadings are liberally construed. See

Haines v. Kerrner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972). 

Plaintiff’s twelve page typed complaint alleges that defendants interfered with his

Case 2:06-cv-02204-GEB -CMK Document 5 Filed 03/01/07 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

mining claim. The gist of the complaint is that defendants forced plaintiff to remove his

equipment from his mining claim and then entered plaintiff’s mining claim and removed several

tons of equipment parts and steel without notice to plaintiff that such would be removed. 

Plaintiff appears to allege that defendants conspired against him to coerce, defraud, and defame

him. Plaintiff also alleges that defendants violated his due process rights. 

Plaintiff’s complaint states a cognizable claim against defendants that he alleges

that defendants violated his due process rights. Plaintiff does not state cognizable state law

claims for defamation, fraud, or conspiracy. Accordingly, the court will allow plaintiff thirty

days to file am amended complaint which states cognizable state law claims against defendants. 

Should plaintiff fail to file an amended complaint within thirty days, the court will assume that

plaintiff seeks to proceed only on his federal due process claim and will recommend that the

state law claims be dismissed.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted.

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to file the complaint and open a civil action

for this matter.

3. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date this order is filed to file an

amended complaint against defendants. The court will make issue an order for service of

defendants when it becomes clear whether plaintiff intends to proceed on his original complaint

or to file an amended complaint. 

DATED: February 28, 2007.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-02204-GEB -CMK Document 5 Filed 03/01/07 Page 2 of 2