Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02559/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02559-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

- 1 - 11cv2559 WQH BLM

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD A. SHAPIRO,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 11cv2559 WQH BLM

ORDER

vs.

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF

CALIFORNIA,

Defendant.

HAYES, Judge:

The matter before the Court is the Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis filed

by Plaintiff Richard A. Shapiro. (ECF No. 2).

I. Background

On November 3, 2011, Plaintiff Shapiro, a nonprisoner proceeding pro se, initiated this

action by filing the Complaint and the Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (“IFP”).

(ECF Nos. 1-2). 

II. Discussion

A. Motion to Proceed IFP

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 of $350. See 28

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

only if the 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 3:11-cv-02559-WQH-BLM Document 3 Filed 11/08/11 Page 1 of 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

1

 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 provides: “A pleading that states a claim for relief

must contain: (1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction...; (2)

a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief; and (3)

a demand for the relief sought....” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Rule 8(d) provides that “[e]ach

allegation must be simple, concise, and direct.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d).

- 2 - 11cv2559 WQH BLM

In his declaration accompanying the Motion to Proceed IFP, Plaintiff states that he is

not employed, he does not receive any income, he has a total amount of money of $50, he does

not own a vehicle or any other significant assets such as real estate, stocks, bonds or securities.

(ECF No. 2 at 1-2). Plaintiff states that he pays $30 per month for “transportation”but does

not have any dependents or other financial obligations. Id. at 2. The Court has reviewed

Plaintiff’s declaration and finds that it is sufficient to show that Plaintiff is unable to pay the

fees or post securities required to maintain this action. The Court grants the Motion to Proceed

IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

B. Initial Screening Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(b)

After granting IFP status, the Court must dismiss the case if the case “fails to state a

claim on which relief may be granted” or is “frivolous.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

The standard used to evaluate a motion to dismiss is a liberal one, particularly when the

action has been filed pro se. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 97 (1976). However, even

a “liberal interpretation ... may not supply elements of the claim that were not initially pled.”

Ivey v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982).

The Complaint consists of an “extremely abridged petition” as well as an “unabridged

petition.” Plaintiff contends that he “has seven cases he has to deal with, including this one

all based in San Diego County.” (ECF No. 1 at 3). The Complaint contains a paragraph about

each case consisting of profane commentary regarding adverse rulings. Plaintiff requests that

“this court remand this case to the trial court level to rehear this case ....” Id. at 2. These

allegations are insufficient to put Defendant on notice of the claims against it, as required by

Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.1

 For this reason, the Court finds that Plaintiff

fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted.

A complaint “is frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or fact. [The]

term ‘frivolous,’ when applied to the complaint, embraces not only the inarguable legal

Case 3:11-cv-02559-WQH-BLM Document 3 Filed 11/08/11 Page 2 of 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

- 3 - 11cv2559 WQH BLM

conclusion, but also the fanciful factual allegation.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325

(1989); see also Martin v. Sias, 88 F.3d 774, 775 (9th Cir. 1996). When determining whether

a complaint is frivolous, the Court need not accept the factual allegations as true, but must

“pierce the veil of the complaint,” to determine if the allegations are “fanciful,” “fantastic,”

or “delusional.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992) (quoting Neitzke, 490 U.S.

at 327-28).

The following is an example of the Complaint’s allegations:

In the 37-2011-00052359 one, the judge refused to hear a Reconsideration

Motion, though she acknowledged filed on time, because she states a

Reconsideration Motion can’t be heard after judgment is signed. What? Of

course the Judgment is signed, it’s a JUDGMENT ... A judgment that can be

reconsidered according to Cal. CCP § 1008(a). Petitioner didn’t appeal that

order because he doesn’t have enough ... hours in the day, working day and

night on this ... , to deal with the deluge of pure, unadulterated horse[] coming

out of California Courts.

(ECF No. 1 at 4). The Complaint contains rambling allegations lacking an arguable basis in

fact or law similar to the example quoted above. The Court dismisses the Complaint as

frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).

III. Conclusion 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis

filed by Plaintiff Richard A. Shapiro (ECF No. 2) is GRANTED. The Complaint is

DISMISSED without prejudice. 

DATED: November 8, 2011

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

Case 3:11-cv-02559-WQH-BLM Document 3 Filed 11/08/11 Page 3 of 3