Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_08-cv-01273/USCOURTS-cand-4_08-cv-01273-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1981 Civil Rights

---

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EUGENE TERRELL

Plaintiff, No. C 08-1273 PJH

v.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, OFFICE OF

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, et al.,

Defendants.

_______________________________/

Plaintiff Eugene Terrell filed this action on March 4, 2008. On the same date,

plaintiff also filed four motions for injunctive relief, and a request for leave to proceed in

forma pauperis (“IFP”). The court finds that the complaint must be dismissed under 28

U.S.C. § 1915 (e) for failure to state a claim. 

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed this action against defendants Attorney General of the State of

California, Edmund G. Brown, Jr.; and Attorney General of the United States, Michael

Mukasey, alleging claims of federal and state constitutional violations and various state law

claims. Plaintiff alleges no facts supporting any claim against either defendant – or at least

none that the court can locate in plaintiff’s voluminous filings. 

The actions that plaintiff appears to be complaining of are (1) actions taken by the

courts of the State of California, by various employees of the State of California, and by

Case 4:08-cv-01273-PJH Document 12 Filed 04/28/08 Page 1 of 4
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

various police officers, in connection with a 1995 dispute between plaintiff and his girlfriend

Christina San Pedro, and a resulting child custody dispute; (2) the 2005 denial by an

administrative law judge of the California Department of Social Services of plaintiff’s

request for reimbursement of expenses he incurred in connection with the purchase of a

computer; and (3) the failure of the Alameda County Department of Social Services to

respond to plaintiff’s December 2007 letter requesting that the California Department of

Social Services provide plaintiff with funds on a monthly basis so that he can purchase

medical marijuana. 

DISCUSSION

A. Legal Standard 

The court may authorize a plaintiff to file an action in federal court without

prepayment of fees or security if the plaintiff submits an affidavit showing that he or she is

unable to pay such fees or give security therefor. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). When a complaint

is filed in forma pauperis, it must be dismissed prior to service of process if it is frivolous or

malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks monetary damages from defendants who are

immune from suit. 28 U.S.C. § 1915( e)(2); see also Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221,

1226-27 (9th Cir. 1984 ). 

A complaint is frivolous for purposes of § 1915(e) if it lacks any arguable basis in fact

or in law. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 328- 30 (1989). A complaint lacks an

arguable basis in law only if controlling authority requires a finding that the facts alleged fail

to establish an arguable legal claim. Guti v. INS, 908 F.2d 495, 496 (9th Cir. 1990). 

When a complaint is dismissed under § 1915(e), the plaintiff should be given leave

to amend the complaint with directions as to curing its deficiencies, unless it is clear from

the face of the complaint that the deficiencies could not be cured by amendment. Cato v.

United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal of complaint as frivolous). 

B. Analysis 

The court finds that the complaint must be dismissed, for three reasons. First, the

complaint and associated filings are rambling and largely unintelligible. The court is unable

Case 4:08-cv-01273-PJH Document 12 Filed 04/28/08 Page 2 of 4
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

1

 In addition, it appears that the claim involving the 1995 incident is also barred by the

doctrine of res judicata. The court’s docket reflects that plaintiff filed 15 civil actions in 1998,

and that at least one of those asserted claims based on the same incident or incidents, and

was fairly and fully decided. See, e.g., Terrell v. Attorney General (C-98-0219-VRW), 1998 WL

574387 (N.D. Cal., Aug. 31, 1998).

3

to ascertain exactly what claims plaintiff is asserting, and finds that any defendant would be

hard-pressed to provide a responsive pleading. 

Second, as to any claims relating to the 1995 dispute with Ms. San Pedro, and the

2005 denial of plaintiff’s request for reimbursement of expenses he incurred in purchasing a

computer, any such claim is time-barred. Claims of constitutional violations are governed

by the forum state’s personal injury statute of limitations. Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261,

276 (1985). In California, the general residual statute of limitations for personal injury

actions changed from one year to two years in an amendment effective January 1, 2003. 

Maldonado v. Harris, 370 F.3d 945, 955 (9th Cir. 2004). Thus, any claim accruing prior to

March 4, 2006, is time-barred.1

Third, plaintiff alleges no facts in support of any claim against either of the named

defendants. In particular, the complaint alleges no facts even remotely suggesting a

connection between defendant Michael Mukasey and any of the actions of which plaintiff

complains. Nor, as to the one claim that is not entirely time-barred, does the complaint

allege any facts showing a connection between defendant Edmund G. Brown, Jr., and the

failure of the Alameda County Department of Social Services to act promptly on plaintiff’s

request for funds for the purchase of medical marijuana. 

CONCLUSION

In accordance with the foregoing, the court finds that the complaint must be

DISMISSED. The dismissal is WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Any amended complaint may

not include the claims that the court has indicated are time-barred; must contain separately

numbered causes of action; and must allege facts supporting each separate cause of

action as against each named defendant. 

Any amended complaint must be filed no later than May 26, 2008. Failure to file an

Case 4:08-cv-01273-PJH Document 12 Filed 04/28/08 Page 3 of 4
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

4

amended complaint by that deadline will result in the dismissal of the action. The motions

for injunctive relief are DENIED. The request for leave to proceed IFP is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 28, 2008

______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:08-cv-01273-PJH Document 12 Filed 04/28/08 Page 4 of 4