Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00765/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00765-0/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

16cv765 BTM(JLB)

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,

Plaintiff,

 v.

SHERIFF, SAN DIEGO,

Defendant.

Case No.: 16cv765 BTM(JLB)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

RPOCEED IN FORMA 

PAUPERIS AND DISMISSING 

COMPLAINT

On March 31, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Complaint and a Motion to Proceed In 

Forma Pauperis (“IFP”). For the reasons discussed below, the IFP Motion is 

granted, and the Complaint is dismissed.

DISCUSSION

I. Motion to Proceed IFP

Upon review of Plaintiff’s affidavit in support of his IFP Motion, the Court finds 

that Plaintiff has made a sufficient showing of inability to pay the filing fee required 

to prosecute this action. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s IFP Motion is GRANTED. 

II. Failure to State a Claim and Frivolous Action

Although the Court will allow Plaintiff to proceed IFP, Plaintiff’s Complaint 

must be dismissed. The Court is under a continuing duty to dismiss an IFP case 

whenever the Court determines that the action is “frivolous or malicious” or “fails 

to state a claim on which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i),(ii).

Plaintiff alleges violation of his civil rights and infliction of emotional distress 

and seeks $1,000,000,000,000,000,000 in damages. The only facts alleged by 

Plaintiff are: “On 3/28/2016 at 6:00 a.m. Civil Rights violation discrimination 

Case 3:16-cv-00765-BTM-JLB Document 3 Filed 04/05/16 Page 1 of 2
2

16cv765 BTM(JLB)

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

against Plaintiff because of Sex, the city having its employee place his foot out on 

top of the Plaintiffs feet.” Essentially, Plaintiff alleges that a city employee stepped 

on Plaintiff’s feet. These allegations do not support a claim for violation of 

constitutional rights or intentional infliction of emotional distress. Therefore, the 

Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

In addition, the Court finds that this action is frivolous. An action is frivolous 

if it lacks an arguable basis in either law of fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 

324 (1989). Because this action is frivolous, the Court DISMISSES it pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). The Court does not grant Plaintiff leave to amend. 

See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 n.8 (9th Cir. 2000) (“When a case may 

be classified as frivolous or malicious, there is, by definition, no merit to the 

underlying action and so no reason to grant leave to amend.”).1 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons discussed above, Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma 

pauperis is GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED without leave to 

amend as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). The Clerk shall close 

this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 5, 2016

 

1

 The Court observes that it appears that Plaintiff is abusing the legal process. On the same day that 

Plaintiff filed this action, Plaintiff filed four other cases in this district. All of Plaintiff’s Complaints allege 

miscellaneous violations of civil rights. 

Case 3:16-cv-00765-BTM-JLB Document 3 Filed 04/05/16 Page 2 of 2