Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-05109/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-05109-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1391 Personal Injury

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

PATRICIA TRATEBAS

Plaintiff,

 v.

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant.

 /

No. C 05-5109 JSW

ORDER DENYING

APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN

FORMA PAUPERIS

On December 9, 2005, Plaintiff filed a one-page, handwritten complaint alleging that she

has encountered problems with access to San Francisco Housing Authority (“SFHA”) due to her

consumption of medical marijuana. Plaintiff has earlier filed a lawsuit against the SFHA to

fight her eviction (Tratchas v. San Francisco Housing Authority, Case No. 05-cv-1327 JSW

(filed April 1, 2005)) as well as a case against the United States “to challenge the Federal Courts

on [medical cannibas laws]” (Tratebas v. United States, Case No. 05-cv-2401 JSW (filed June

14, 2005)). This matter, in which Plaintiff seeks to legalize medical cannibas, appears to

replicate the same claims made in the earlier matters and was deemed related to Plaintiff’s

previous cases by the undersigned. 

Courts must deny in forma pauperis applications under certain circumstances, including

when the underlying complaint sought to be filed is frivolous or when it fails to state a claim

upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Plaintiff’s complaint in this matter

fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. In Gonzales v. Raich, 125 S. Ct. 2195,

(2005), the United States Supreme Court held that the federal Controlled Substances Act applied 

Case 3:05-cv-05109-JSW Document 8 Filed 01/27/06 Page 1 of 2
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

to medical marijuana, which certain patients had been allowed to use under the terms of the

California Compassionate Use Act. The federal courts are required to follow this binding 

precedent and the federal government is required to follow the federal Controlled Substances

Act. Consequently, neither the SFHA’s refusal to let Plaintiff smoke marijuana in its public

housing facilities nor the federal government’s enforcement of the laws restricting use provides

a cognizable legal claim.

For these reasons, and for good cause shown, Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma

pauperis is HEREBY DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and the Complaint is DISMISSED

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. If Plaintiff wishes to pursue this action, she must file an

Amended Complaint setting forth a cognizable legal claim and a renewed application to proceed

in forma pauperis by February 21, 2006. Failure to file a cognizable legal claim shall result is

dismissal of this action with prejudice. The Court advises Plaintiff that a Handbook for Pro Se

Litigants, which contains helpful information about proceeding without an attorney is available

through the Court’s website or in the Clerk’s office. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 27, 2006 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-05109-JSW Document 8 Filed 01/27/06 Page 2 of 2