Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-04802/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-04802-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 18:1961 Racketeering (RICO) Act

---

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

MICHAEL ADAMS,

Plaintiff,

 v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant. /

No. C 07-04802 WHA

ORDER GRANTING

APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN

FORMA PAUPERIS AND

DISMISSING COMPLAINT

Plaintiff Michael Adams filed his complaint and application to proceed in forma

pauperis on September 18, 2007. A court may authorize a plaintiff to prosecute an action in

federal court without prepayment of fees or security therefor, if the plaintiff submits an affidavit

showing that he or she is unable to pay such fees. 28 U.S.C. 1915(a). Plaintiff has submitted

the required documentation, and it is evident from his application that his assets and income are

insufficient to enable plaintiff to pay the filing fees.

Viewing plaintiff’s application in isolation, it thus appears that he should be allowed to

proceed in forma pauperis. A court is under a continuing duty, however, to dismiss a case

whenever it determines that the action “(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on

which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune

from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B).

Plaintiff’s complaint concerning wrongful death, asbestos, and public corruption does

not appear to state any cognizable claims. It is also unclear what relief is requested. 

Case 3:07-cv-04802-WHA Document 5 Filed 09/20/07 Page 1 of 2
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

Accordingly, the complaint must be dismissed. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126

(9th Cir. 2000) (holding that a district court is required “to dismiss an in forma pauperis

complaint that fails to state a claim”). 

For the foregoing reasons, this order GRANTS plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma

pauperis, and simultaneously, DISMISSES the complaint with leave to amend. This means

plaintiff may file an amended complaint as long as it is received in the Clerk’s office by

OCTOBER 22, 2007. Otherwise, judgment will be entered accordingly. The amended complaint

shall comply with the following requests: 

1. Please include “Case No. C 07-4802 WHA” in the caption.

2. Please write a simple statement why you believe a federal court has the power to

decide particular case, i.e., subject-matter jurisdiction.

3. Please write a simple statement explaining why you believe the Northern District

of California is the proper venue for this action.

4. Please explain what you believe the defendant did to you that was unlawful.

5. Please explain what laws you believe were violated by defendants’ conduct

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 20, 2007. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:07-cv-04802-WHA Document 5 Filed 09/20/07 Page 2 of 2