Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01173/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01173-1/pdf.json

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

---

1

3:16-cv-1173-LAB-KSC

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JUSTIN COYLE,

Patient #170-207-5,

Plaintiff,

vs.

CLEAR CHANNEL 

COMMUNICATIONS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:16-cv-1173-LAB-KSC

ORDER:

1) DISMISSING CIVIL ACTION AS 

FRIVOLOUS PURSUANT TO 

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)

AND

2) DENYING MOTION TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 

AS MOOT [ECF No. 3]

While he was detained in the San Diego Central Jail (SDCJ), JUSTIN COYLE 

(“Plaintiff”), filed an incomprehensible pleading seeking unspecified relief against 

various public and private business entities, including Clear Channel Communications, 

MTV, Hollywood Production Co., Sony Records, “Private Illegal Individuals,” a “Cult of 

Sex Stalkers, the EPA, IRS, and a “K9,” while invoking federal jurisdiction under the 

Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (ECF No. 1). 

Because he did not pay the $400 required to commence a civil action in federal 

court and did not move to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

Case 3:16-cv-01173-LAB-KSC Document 7 Filed 10/06/16 Page 1 of 5
2

3:16-cv-1173-LAB-KSC

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

§ 1915(a), the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) (ECF No. 

2). Plaintiff was given a chance to either pay the filing fee or move IFP if he wished to 

proceed, but warned that if he did either, his Complaint would be dismissed as frivolous 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and/or 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). (See ECF No. 2 

at 3 n.3.)

Plaintiff has since filed a Motion to Proceed IFP (ECF No. 3), a change of address 

indicating his interim transfer to Patton State Hospital (ECF No. 6), and an Amended 

Complaint (ECF No. 5), which supersedes his original pleading. See Ramirez v. Cty. of 

San Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 2015) (“It is well-established in our 

circuit that an ‘amended complaint supersedes the original, the latter being treated 

thereafter as non-existent.’”) (citations omitted).

I. Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint

Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint names no Defendants in its caption and fails to 

invoke federal jurisdiction under the U.S. Constitution or any federal statute. (ECF No. 

5.) In it, Plaintiff claims he is a “deep cover CIA operative,” and that the “new Archer 

Vice [TV] show was based and titled about [his] true life.” Plaintiff contends he has 

therefore been subject to “plag[i]arism and slander” for which he is entitled to royalties 

and “rep[ara]tions,” and seeks to “ha[]lt [its] further production.” (Id. at 1.) 

Plaintiff also includes “new” allegations that appear related to his medical care 

while he was detained in the SDCJ. Specifically, Plaintiff claims to have developed 

carpal tunnel syndrome, and he requests “assistance/accommodations [and] medical 

prescriptions other than ibupro[f]en.” (Id. at 4.) 

II. Screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A

As amended by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1915A requires sua 

sponte dismissal of prisoner complaints, or any portions of them, which are “frivolous, 

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

§ 1915A(b); Coleman v. Tollefson, 135 S. Ct. 1759, 1764 (2015). “The purpose of 

§ 1915A is to ‘ensure that the targets of frivolous or malicious suits need not bear the 

Case 3:16-cv-01173-LAB-KSC Document 7 Filed 10/06/16 Page 2 of 5
3

3:16-cv-1173-LAB-KSC

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

expense of responding.”’ Nordstrom v. Ryan, 762 F.3d 903, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2014) 

(internal citation omitted).

The Court finds Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, like his original, is patently 

frivolous. A pleading is “factual[ly] frivolous[]” under § 1915A(b)(1) if “the facts alleged 

rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible, whether or not there are 

judicially noticeable facts available to contradict them.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 

25, 25-26 (1992). 

“[A] complaint, containing as it does both factual allegations and legal 

conclusions, is frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. . . . 

[The] term ‘frivolous,’ when applied to a complaint, embraces not only the inarguable 

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

319, 325 (1989). When determining whether a complaint is frivolous, the court need not 

accept the allegations as true, but must “pierce the veil of the complaint’s factual 

allegations,” Id. at 327, to determine whether they are “‘fanciful,’ ‘fantastic,’ [or] 

‘delusional,’” Denton, 504 U.S. at 33 (quoting Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 328). 

As noted above, Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint contains irrational and delusional 

allegations that he is a CIA operative whose life story has been appropriated by cable 

television, music, and Hollywood production companies, the EPA and IRS – all of whom 

have failed to compensate him in royalties. (ECF No. 5 at 1.) As such, his pleading 

“rise[s] to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible,” Denton, 504 U.S. at 33, 

and must be summarily dismissed. See Nordstrom, 762 F.3d at 907 n.1.

Moreover, to the extent Plaintiff also alleges to suffer from carpal tunnel syndrome 

for which he claims to have been inadequately medicated and accommodated while 

previously in custody of the SDCJ (ECF No. 5 at 4), his allegations are also subject to sua 

sponte dismissal as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) because they are 

duplicative of those alleged in another civil action he has previously filed in this Court. 

See Coyle v. San Diego Sheriff’s Dept., et al., S.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 3:16-cv-00667-

GPC-JLB (Doc. No. 1; Doc. No. 3 at 7-10.). 

Case 3:16-cv-01173-LAB-KSC Document 7 Filed 10/06/16 Page 3 of 5
4

3:16-cv-1173-LAB-KSC

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

A court “‘may take notice of proceedings in other courts, both within and without 

the federal judicial system, if those proceedings have a direct relation to matters at 

issue.’” Bias v. Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212, 1225 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Bennett v. 

Medtronic, Inc., 285 F.3d 801, 803 n.2 (9th Cir. 2002)). A complaint is also considered 

frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) if it “merely repeats pending or previously 

litigated claims.” Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 n.2 (9th Cir. 1995) 

(construing former 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)) (citations and internal quotations omitted). 

Because Plaintiff has already filed, and has had dismissed, some of the same carpal 

tunnel and medical care claims presented in the Amended Complaint he filed in this case 

as he raised in Coyle v. San Diego Sheriff’s Dept., et al., S.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 3:16-

cv-00667-GPC-JLB, the Court must dismiss his duplicative and subsequently filed claims 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). See Cato, 70 F.3d at 1105 n.2; Lopez, 203 F.3d at 

1127; see also Adams v. Cal. Dep’t of Health Servs., 487 F.3d 684, 688-89 (9th Cir. 

2007) (“[I]n assessing whether the second action is duplicative of the first, we examine 

whether the causes of action and relief sought, as well as the parties or privies to the 

action, are the same.”), overruled on other grounds by Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 

904 (2008).

“When a case may be classified as frivolous or malicious, there is, by definition, no 

merit to the underlying action and so no reason to grant leave to amend.” See Lopez v. 

Smith 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 n.8 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc).

III. Conclusion and Orders

For the reasons set forth above, the Court hereby: 

(1) DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP (ECF No. 3) as moot;

(2) DISMISSES this civil action sua sponte as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915A(b)(1) and without leave to amend; and

(3) CERTIFIES that an IFP appeal from this Order would also be frivolous and 

therefore, could 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, 

Case 3:16-cv-01173-LAB-KSC Document 7 Filed 10/06/16 Page 4 of 5
5

3:16-cv-1173-LAB-KSC

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

550 (9th Cir. 1977) (indigent appellant is permitted to proceed IFP on appeal only if 

appeal would not be frivolous).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 4, 2016

HON. LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

Case 3:16-cv-01173-LAB-KSC Document 7 Filed 10/06/16 Page 5 of 5