Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-04889/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-04889-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

D. BRIAN F. BARTOLOME,

Plaintiff(s),

 vs.

DOES 1 - 10 IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITY,

Defendant(s). /

No. 07-4889 MHP

ORDER DENYING IN

FORMA PAUPERIS

FILING AND

DISMISSAL OF

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff filed this action on September 20, 2007 alleging at least seventeen different causes

of action ranging from child abuse to violations of the Geneva Convention to intellectual property

claims and violations of the disability laws. He names no defendants, except Does 1-10 in their

official capacity. In the body of the complaint he provides a laundry list of seventy-four offenses

from assault to witness tampering, apparently taking many of them from the list of criminal offenses

contained in a penal or criminal code with a few curious ones thrown in, such as "Pride-and-Ego

Down", "Sensory Deprivation"and "Good Cop/Bad Cop". There are no facts alleged just rambling

incoherencies suggesting he expects a sealed court proceeding in which the court conducts sweeping

investigations into an array of activities which are not made all that clear by the complaint.

The court notes, and plaintiff acknowledges, that plaintiff is no stranger to the courts having

filed at least twenty-three actions in various federal district courts. Plaintiff also admits that he has

filed at least fifteen cases in state court. In fact, on the date plaintiff filed this complaint he filed two

Case 3:07-cv-04889-MHP Document 8 Filed 01/11/08 Page 1 of 3
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

other actions in this district.

The complaint in this case is incomprehensible. Despite the recitation of a list of violations

and offenses there is nothing that tells the court the nature of each, or any of the claims. Plaintiff

provides no short and plain statement of any claim or a statement as to what relief he may be entitled

to. Plaintiff states no basis for a cognizable federal claim. 

The district court may deny in forma pauperis status and dismiss a complaint sua sponte if

federal subject matter jurisdiction is lacking or if the complaint is frivolous. See 28 U.S.C.

§1915(e)(2). A complaint is frivolous if "it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact." Neitzke

v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989)(found to be superseded on other grounds by reason of

adoption of section 1915(e) which makes dismissal for failure to state a claim mandatory), see, e.g., 

Lopez v. G.A.Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126 (9thCir.2000); Cruz v. Gomez, I/O, 202 F.3d 593, 596

(2dCir.2000). 

Where a complaint fails to state "any constitutional or statutory right that was violated, nor

asserts any basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction", there is no "arguable basis in law" under

Neitzke and the court on its own initiative may decline to permit the plaintiff to proceed and dismiss

the complaint under section 1915(d). Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995). 

Furthermore, where the complaint alleges facts that are "clearly baseless", "fanciful", or

"delusional" it may be dismissed as frivolous. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 112 S.Ct. 1728,

1733 (1992)(also found superseded in that dismissal was within discretion of district court under

section 1915(d)) and now, under section 1915(e)(2) dismissal is mandatory, see Cruz v. Gomez, 202

F.3d at 596. If the pro se plaintiff can cure the factual allegations in order to state a claim, the court

may give him or her leave to do so. However, if repleading cannot cure the deficiencies the court

may dismiss without leave to amend and even dismiss with prejudice. See Cato v. United States, 70

F.3d at 1106.

Case 3:07-cv-04889-MHP Document 8 Filed 01/11/08 Page 2 of 3
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 3

The court fails to see how plaintiff could state any claim that would amount to a plausible

claim or one over which the court would have jurisdiction. Therefore, the application to file in

forma pauperis is DENIED and the complaint is DISMISSED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: January 9, 2008 

MARILYN HALL PATEL

 Judge

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Case 3:07-cv-04889-MHP Document 8 Filed 01/11/08 Page 3 of 3