Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01680/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01680-0/pdf.json

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

---

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- 11cv1680 BTM (JMA)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LEWIS ANDERSON,

CDCR #P-97405

Civil No. 11cv1680 BTM (JMA)

Plaintiffs, ORDER:

(1) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS; [ECF No. 3];

(2) SUA SPONTE DISMISSING

COMPLAINT AS FRIVOLOUS

PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(2) & § 1915A; and 

(3) DENYING MOTION TO FILE

SECOND AMENDED WRIT OF

HABEAS CORPUS; MOTION TO

REMAND AND MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

[ECF Nos 6, 8, 10, 12]

vs.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT;

W. SAMUEL HAMRICK, JR.,

Defendants.

Plaintiff, Lewis Anderson, currently incarcerated at Calipatria State Prison located in

Calipatria, California and proceeding pro se, has filed an action entitled “Complaint for

Negligence Based on Plaintiff’s Unable to Determine Definitely which Persons are

Responsible.” In addition, Plaintiff has filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”)

[ECF No. 3], a Motion for Court to Order a Copy of Plaintiff’s Application to File a Second

Case 3:11-cv-01680-BTM-JMA Document 14 Filed 11/07/11 Page 1 of 4
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- 11cv1680 BTM (JMA)

Amended Writ of Habeas Corpus, two Motions to Remand, Consolidate and Redress Writs of

Habeas Corpus, and a Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF Nos. 6, 8, 10, 12]. Plaintiff seeks

damages against Defendant United States District Court (“USDC”) and W. Samuel Hamrick in

the amount of $138,843,500.00. (Compl. at 3.)

I. 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 party’s failure to prepay the entire fee only

if the party is granted leave to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Prisoners granted

leave to proceed IFP however, remain obligated to pay the entire fee in installments, regardless

of whether the action is ultimately dismissed for any reason. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) & (2).

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, as amended by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), a

prisoner seeking leave to proceed IFP must submit a “certified copy of the trust fund account

statement (or institutional equivalent) for the prisoner for the six-month period immediately

preceding the filing of the complaint.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). The Court finds that Plaintiff

has submitted an affidavit which complies with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), and that he has attached

a certified copy of his trust account statement pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2) and S.D.CAL.

CIVLR 3.2. Plaintiff’s trust account statement shows that he has insufficient funds from which

to pay filing fees at this time. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(4). Therefore, the Court GRANTS

Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP [ECF No. 3] and assesses no initial partial filing fee per 28

U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). However, the entire $350 balance of the filing fees mandated shall be

collected and forwarded to the Clerk of the Court pursuant to the installment payment provisions

set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1).

II. Initial Screening per 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and § 1915A(b)

A. Standard of Review

The PLRA also obligates the Court to review complaints filed by all persons proceeding

IFP and by those, like Plaintiff, who are “incarcerated or detained in any facility [and] accused

of, sentenced for, or adjudicated delinquent for, violations of criminal law or the terms or

Case 3:11-cv-01680-BTM-JMA Document 14 Filed 11/07/11 Page 2 of 4
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

 Those cases are: 1) a civil rights complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Anderson v.

City of Riverside, et al., S.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 11-1339 LAB (RBB), which was transferred to the

Central District, Eastern Division, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 84(c)(1), 1391(b) and 1406(a) on June 17,

2011 for lack of proper venue because Plaintiff’s claims arose in Riverside County [ECF No. 2], and

2) a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, Anderson v. McEwen, et al., S. D.

Cal. Civil Case No. 11-1341 MMA (POR), which was also transferred to the Central District because

it challenged a Riverside County Superior Court conviction [ECF No. 3].

-3- 11cv1680 BTM (JMA)

conditions of parole, probation, pretrial release, or diversionary program,” “as soon as

practicable after docketing.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and § 1915A(b). Under these

provisions, the Court must sua sponte dismiss any IFP or prisoner complaint, or any portion

thereof, which is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or which seeks damages from

defendants who are immune. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and § 1915A.

Plaintiff seeks to hold Defendants liable on the grounds that “someone within the

jurisdictional governmental body of the court, or ... the Court Clerk” had “willfully or recklessly

or negligently” transferred two of his previous cases to the Central District of California, Eastern

Division.1

 (Compl. at 1, 3.) Plaintiff claims this “anonymous person” or the court clerk have

made “attempts to deceive the Courts and keep the truth hidden.” (Pl.’s Mot. for Court to Order

Copy of Plaintiff’s Application at 2.) 

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. 

Accordingly, the Court dismisses this action as frivolous and denies all of Plaintiff’s

corresponding Motions as moot.

III. Conclusion and Order

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s Motion to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) [ECF No. 3] is

GRANTED. 

2. The Secretary of California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, or his

designee, shall collect from Plaintiff’s prison trust account the $350 balance of the filing fee

owed in this case by collecting monthly payments from the account in an amount equal to twenty

Case 3:11-cv-01680-BTM-JMA Document 14 Filed 11/07/11 Page 3 of 4
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

-4- 11cv1680 BTM (JMA)

percent (20%) of the preceding month’s income and forward payments to the Clerk of the Court

each time the amount in the account exceeds $10 in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2).

ALL PAYMENTS SHALL BE CLEARLY IDENTIFIED BY THE NAME AND NUMBER

ASSIGNED TO THIS ACTION.

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this Order on Matthew Cate,

Secretary, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, 1515 S Street, Suite 502,

Sacramento, California 95814.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that:

4. Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice as frivolous pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(b) and § 1915A(b). Moreover, because the Court finds amendment of

Plaintiff’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 Bd. of

Prison 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)).

5. Further, 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).

6. Plaintiff’s Motion for Application to File a Second Amended Writ of Habeas

Corpus, Motions to Remand and Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF Nos. 6, 8, 10, 12] are

DENIED as moot.

The Clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 7, 2011 _________________________________________

 HON. BARRY TED MOSKOWITZ

 United States District Judge 

Case 3:11-cv-01680-BTM-JMA Document 14 Filed 11/07/11 Page 4 of 4