Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-00818/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-00818-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

-' 

. .. 1 

2 

3 

4 Ot1 OEPUT'I' 

6 

7 

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

11 

12 

13 

GERALD T. DAVIS 

Inmate Booking No. 14718350, 

Plaintiff, 

14 vs. 

16 

UNNAMED DEFENDANTS, 

l7 Defendants. 

18 

19 

Civil 14cv0818 WQH (BLM) 

No. 

ORDER: 

(1) DISMISSING ACTION AS 

FRIVOLOUS PURSUANT TO 28 

U.S.C. § 1915A; and 

(2) DENYING MOTION TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 

AS MOOT 

Plaintiff, currently housed at the San Diego Central Jail located in San Diego, 

21 California, and proceeding pro se, has filed a civil action. (ECF Doc. No. 1.) 

22 II. Initial Screening per 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) 

23 The Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA"), 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, obligates the 

24 Court to review complaints filed by anyone "incarcerated or detained in any facility who 

is accused of, sentenced for, or adjudicated delinquent for, violations of criminal law or 

26 the terms or conditions of parole, probation, pretrial release, or diversionary program," 

27 "as soon as practicable after docketing" and regardless of whether the prisoner prepays 

28 filing fees or moves to proceed IFP. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), (c). The Court must sua 

1:'Everyone\....EFILE-PROSE\WQH\I4cv08 18-Dsm & Dny IFP mooc.wpd. -1- 14cv0818 WQH (BLM) 

Case 3:14-cv-00818-WQH-BLM Document 6 Filed 05/09/14 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 

sponte dismiss prisoner complaints, or any portions thereof, which are frivolous, 

malicious, or fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 

1915A(b); Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443,446-47 (9th Cir. 2000). 

The Court finds Plaintiff's Complaint to be incomprehensible. While not entirely 

clear, Plaintiff appears to allege that he has been kidnaped. The remaining claims are 

indecipherable. A complaint is frivolous "where it lacks an arguable basis either in law 

or in fact." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). Here, the Court finds 

Plaintiff's claims to be frivolous under § 1915A because they lack even "an arguable 

basis either in law or in fact," and appear "fanciful," "fantastic," or "delusional." 

Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 325, 328. Thus, the Court dismisses the entirety of Plaintiff's 

Complaint as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 

III. 	 CONCLUSION AND ORDER 

For the reasons set forth above, the Court hereby: 

(1) DISMISSES Plaintiff's Complaint as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915A. Moreover, because the Court finds amendment ofPlaintiff's claims would be 

futile at this time, leave to amend is DENIED. See Cahill v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 80 

F.3d 336,339 (9th Cir. 1996) (denial of a leave to amend is not an abuse of discretion 

where further amendment would be futile); see also Robinson v. California Ed. ofPrison 

Terms, 997 F. Supp. 1303, 1308 (C.D. Cal. 1998) ("Since plaintiff has not, and cannot, 

state a claim containing an arguable basis in law, this action should be dismissed without 

leave to amend; any amendment would be futile.") (citing Newland v. Dalton, 81 F.3d 

904, 907 (9th Cir. 1996». 

(2) Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed IFP is DENIED as moot. 

II 

II 

II 

II 

II 

1:\Everyonc'LEFlLE-PROSE\WQH\14cv0818·Dsm & DDy IFP moot.wpd. -2-	 14cv0818 WQH (BLM) 

Case 3:14-cv-00818-WQH-BLM Document 6 Filed 05/09/14 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) This Court CERTIFIES that any IFP appeal from this Order would not be 

taken "in good faith" pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). See Coppedge v. United 

States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962); Gardner v. Pogue, 558 F.2d 548,550 (9th Cir. 1977) 

(indigent appellant is permitted to proceed IFP on appeal only if appeal would not be 

frivolous). 

(4) The Clerk of Court shall close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: <;/f:d;-c 

l:\Everyou e~FIL ROSE\WQH\ 4cv0818-Dsm & Du y rFP mool.wpd. -3- 14cv0818 WQH (BLM) 

Case 3:14-cv-00818-WQH-BLM Document 6 Filed 05/09/14 Page 3 of 3