Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-04142/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-04142-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Personal Injury

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ERIC C. GEROLD,

Plaintiff(s),

 vs.

NOVORTIS RETALIN,

Defendant(s). /

No. C 07-4142 MEJ

ORDER FOR CLERK OF COURT TO

REASSIGN CASE

REPORT & RECOMMENDATION RE:

PLAINTIFF'S APPLICATION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

On August 13, 2007, Plaintiff Eric C. Gerold filed a complaint naming Novortis Retalin as a

defendant. On the same day, Plaintiff also filed an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

("IFP"). Plaintiff has not consented the jurisdiction of a United States magistrate jurisdiction

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. Accordingly, this case shall be reassigned to a district court judge with

the following report and recommendation.

I. IFP Application

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), the Court may permit an individual to file an action in

federal court without prepayment of fees when the plaintiff has demonstrated his or her poverty. 

Here, Plaintiff has submitted an incomplete application. Specifically, in Section 2 of the application,

Plaintiff states that he has received money within the past twelve months from the following

sources: "Business, Profession, or self employment," and "Federal or State welfare payments, Social

Case 3:07-cv-04142-MJJ Document 5 Filed 09/04/07 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 2

Security or other government source". Despite this statement, Plaintiff fails to describe the source of

money and does not state the amount received from each source. Accordingly, the undersigned is

unable to determine whether Plaintiff has properly demonstrated his poverty, and recommends that

the district court order Plaintiff to provide this additional information.

II. Merits of Plaintiff's Complaint

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), where a plaintiff seeks to proceed in forma pauperis, the

Court must dismiss the complaint if it determines that the complaint is frivolous or malicious, or that

the plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 

The Court may deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis if it determines at the outset "if it appears

from the face of the proposed complaint that the action is frivolous or without merit." Tripati v.

First National Bank & Trust, 821 F.2d 1368, 1370 (9th Cir. 1987). In making this determination,

the Court assesses the factual and legal basis of the asserted wrong, "however inartfully pleaded," to

determine whether a basis for federal jurisdiction exists. Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-

28 (9th Cir. 1984). However, "[a] court may dismiss as frivolous complaints reciting bare legal

conclusions with no suggestion of supporting facts, or postulating events and circumstances of a

wholly fanciful kind." Id. (citing Taylor v. Gibson, 529 F.2d 709, 717 (5th Cir. 1976)).

Here, Plaintiff's Complaint consists of eight handwritten lines and appears to allege that

certain drugs, presumably those manufactured by the defendant, caused him "to think I was the devil

or something evil." Plaintiff also states that he was "[h]earing in church things that shouldn't hear

frightened me" [sic] and that "[r]eligions ignorance trifled and beguiled my mind from common

sense." [sic]. (Doc. #1.) From these allegations, the undersigned is unable to determine the nature

of Plaintiff's allegations. Further, Plaintiff's complaint is devoid of facts or allegations establishing

causation and harm or any information about the basis for the claim and the Court's jurisdiction. See

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Accordingly, the undersigned recommends that Plaintiff's complaint should

be dismissed.

III. Leave to Amend

A court should only dismiss a complaint without leave to amend when "the court can rule out

Case 3:07-cv-04142-MJJ Document 5 Filed 09/04/07 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 3

any possibility, however unlikely it might be, that an amended complaint would succeed in stating a

claim." Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1128 (9th Cir. 2000) (internal quotation omitted). In this

case, the undersigned recommends that Plaintiff be given a chance to amend his complaint. The

undersigned also recommends that the following instructions be given to Plaintiff:

Any amended complaint should contain a simple statement of why

Plaintiff believes the federal court has the power (i.e., the jurisdiction)

to decide this case, a clear and concise explanation of what Plaintiff

believes Defendant did that was unlawful and an explanation of what

laws Plaintiff believes were violated by Defendant's conduct. Plaintiff

can find more information on what needs to be in a complaint in the

Pro Se Handbook, which is available on the district court's website,

http://www.cand.uscourts.gov. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended

complaint that contains a short and plain statement of the claim and

the basis for federal court jurisdiction, this Court will dismiss

Plaintiff's Complaint with prejudice.

IV. Conclusion

Based on the analysis above, the Court RECOMMENDS that the District Court:

1. order Plaintiff to amend his in forma pauperis application to provide the source of

money and amount received from each source stated in Section 2 of his application;

and

2. dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint with leave to amend.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, any party may file objections to this Report

and Recommendation with the assigned District Judge within ten days after being served with a

copy.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 4, 2007 

MARIA-ELENA JAMES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:07-cv-04142-MJJ Document 5 Filed 09/04/07 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ERIC C. GEROLD,

Plaintiff,

 v.

NOVORTIS RETALIN,

Defendant. /

Case Number: CV07-04142 MEJ 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District

Court, Northern District of California.

That on September 4, 2007, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said

copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said

envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle located

in the Clerk's office.

Eric C. Gerold

17 Woodford Dr

Moraga CA 94549

Dated: September 4, 2007

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: Brenda Tolbert, Deputy Clerk

Case 3:07-cv-04142-MJJ Document 5 Filed 09/04/07 Page 4 of 4