Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00290/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00290-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Department of Treasury
Respondent
James E. Smith
Petitioner

Document Text:

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 Plaintiff neither paid the filing fee nor filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis. 1

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES E. SMITH,

Plaintiff,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY,

Defendant.

 /

CASE NO. 1:07-cv-00290-OWW-SMS

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR

FRIVOLOUSNESS, MALICIOUSNESS, AND

FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM UPON

WHICH RELIEF MAY BE GRANTED UNDER

FEDERAL LAW

(Doc. 1)

Plaintiff James E. Smith (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. On February 22, 1

2007, plaintiff filed a civil action seeking relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651 (the All Writs Act).

The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a

governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The

Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally

“frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2).

In this action, plaintiff alleges that the Department of Treasury “has a clear, present and

ministerial duty to abide by and adhere to the exercise of sound discretion governed by legal rules

to do justice according to the law in conducting hearing, receiving and forwarding legal documents

Case 1:07-cv-00290-OWW -DLB Document 5 Filed 01/31/08 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

consistent with laws governing the subject matter of this action.” Doc. 1, pg. 1. Plaintiff alleges that

he has made requests for tax returns, audits, information reports, transcripts and other documents.

As relief, plaintiff requests that the court order defendant to forward all records requested and

declaratory relief. Id., pg. 2. 

Plaintiff appears to be seeking in part an injunction and mandamus. The All Writs Act does

not confer original jurisdiction on federal courts. Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. v. Henson, 537

U.S. 28, 29, 123 S.Ct. 366, 368 (2002). In the event that jurisdiction is properly pled, “injunctive

relief under the All Writs Act is to be used ‘sparingly and only in the most critical and exigent

circumstances.’” Brown v. Gilmore, 533 U.S. 1301, 122 S.Ct. 1, 2 (2001) (quoting Ohio Citizens

for Responsible Energy, Inc. v. NRC, 479 U.S. 1312, 1313, 107 S.Ct. 682 (1986) (internal quotations

and citation omitted)). “Such an injunction is appropriate only if ‘the legal rights at issue are

indisputably clear.’” Id. (quoting Ohio Citizens for Responsible Enegery, 479 U.S. at 1313 (internal

quotations and citation omitted)). Plaintiff has alleged no jurisdictional basis for his request for

relief, and plaintiff has made no showing that he is entitled to any relief under the All Writs Act.

With respect to plaintiff’s allegations that his constitutional rights are being violated, to state

a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a statute under which plaintiff may seek monetary damages or

equitable relief from prison officials for violating his rights, a plaintiff must allege that (1) the

defendant acted under color of state law and (2) the defendant deprived him of rights secured by the

Constitution or federal law. Long v. County of Los Angeles, 442 F.3d 1178, 1185 (9th Cir. 2006).

“Rule 8(a)’s simplified pleading standard applies to all civil actions, with limited exceptions,” none

of which applies to section 1983 actions. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 U.S. 506, 512 (2002);

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Pursuant to Rule 8(a), a complaint must contain “a short and plain statement

of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). “Such a

statement must simply give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff’s claim is and the grounds

upon which it rests.” Swierkiewicz, 534 U.S. at 512. A court may dismiss a complaint only if it is

clear that no relief could be granted under any set of facts that could be proved consistent with the

allegations. Id. at 514. However, “the liberal pleading standard . . . applies only to a plaintiff’s

factual allegations.” Neitze v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 330 n.9 (1989). “[A] liberal interpretation

Case 1:07-cv-00290-OWW -DLB Document 5 Filed 01/31/08 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

 The Court takes judicial notice of document numbers 24, 26, 43, 49, 55, and 68 in case number 1:04-cv- 2

05950-OWW-LJO PC Smith v. Scribner; document numbers 24, 25, and 30 in case number 1:06-cv-00310-AWINEW (DLB) PC Smith v. Scribner; document number 15 in case number 1:06-cv-01434-LJO-NEW (DLB) PC

Smith v. Board of Prison Term Personnel; and document number 7 in case number 1:06-cv-01800-LJO-NEW

(WMW) Smith v. Scribner.

 A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 3

490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th Cir. 1984). The Court may dismiss a

claim as frivolous where it is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are

clearly baseless. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully

pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1989);

Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227. The test for maliciousness is a subjective one and requires the Court to “determine the ...

good faith of the applicant.” Kinney v. Plymouth Rock Squab Co., 236 U.S. 43, 46 (1915); see Wright v.

Newsome, 795 F.2d 964, 968 n. 1 (11th Cir. 1986). A lack of good faith most commonly is found in repetitive suits

filed by plaintiffs who have used the advantage of cost-free filing to file a multiplicity of suits. A complaint is

malicious if it suggests an intent to vex defendants or abuse the judicial process by relitigating claims decided in

prior cases. Crisafi v. Holland, 655 F.2d 1305, 1309 (D.C. Cir. 1981); Phillips v. Carey, 638 F.2d 207, 209 (10th

Cir. 1981); Ballentine v. Crawford, 563 F.Supp. 627, 628-29 (N.D. Ind. 1983); cf. Glick v. Gutbrod, 782 F.2d 754,

757 (7th Cir. 1986) (court has inherent power to dismiss case demonstrating “clear pattern of abuse of the judicial

process”). 

3

of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements of the claim that were not initially

pled.” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v.

Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)).

Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The complaint

is devoid of any statement setting forth a jurisdictional basis for this action. Assuming the Court has

jurisdiction pursuant to section 1983, the complaint is devoid of any factual allegations showing that

plaintiff is entitled to any relief under federal law. Even plaintiff’s prayer for relief is so devoid of

detail that the Court cannot ascertain what specifically plaintiff seeks the Court to order defendants

to do.

Plaintiff has filed more than forty actions in this Court, and plaintiff has filed similar requests

for relief. In other actions, plaintiff has been placed on notice as to the appropriate standard for

obtaining injunctive relief, and plaintiff has also been placed on notice that his pleadings must

contain sufficient detail for the Court to determine whether or not he might be entitled to relief under

federal law. Despite this, plaintiff filed the instant action, which is utterly devoid of any showing 2

that plaintiff is entitled to relief in federal court. The Court therefore finds that in addition to failing

to state a claim, the filing of this action was both frivolous and malicious. 

3

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that this action is frivolous, malicious, and fails to

Case 1:07-cv-00290-OWW -DLB Document 5 Filed 01/31/08 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

state a claim upon which relief may be granted under federal law. In light of the circumstances set

forth herein, justice does not require that leave to amend be granted. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122,

1130 (9th Cir. 2000).

Accordingly, this action is HEREBY DISMISSED, with prejudice, for frivolousness,

maliciousness, and for failure to state a claim under federal law, and this dismissal SHALL COUNT

AS A STRIKE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(g).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 30, 2008 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00290-OWW -DLB Document 5 Filed 01/31/08 Page 4 of 4