Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_10-cv-00090/USCOURTS-cand-4_10-cv-00090-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
J.F. Stivens
Defendant
Michael K. Verble
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

MICHAEL K. VERBLE

Plaintiff(s), No. C 10-0090 PJH

v. ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT

AND DENYING REQUEST TO PROCEED

J.F. STIVENS, et al., IN FORMA PAUPERIS

Defendant(s).

_______________________________/

The court received plaintiff's complaint and application to proceed in forma pauperis,

both filed in this court on January 7, 2010. Although plaintiff’s action was initially

designated an appeal from a social security decision, the court was unable to determine the

propriety of such designation due to incomprehensibility of plaintiff’s submissions. Thus, on

February 22, 2010, the court issued an order for clarification, notifying plaintiff that appeals

from underlying benefits decisions made by Social Security Commissioner require a final

decision by an administrative law judge (“ALJ”), and requesting plaintiff to provide a copy of

any such decision to the court. The court’s order further notified plaintiff that in the event

the court determined, after submission of plaintiff’s response, that plaintiff’s complaint was

not a true appeal from a denial of social security benefits, the complaint would be screened

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 

On March 2, 2010, plaintiff filed his response to the court’s request for clarification. 

As with plaintiff’s original complaint, however, plaintiff’s filed response is incomprehensible

and unintelligible, and attaches various photocopied documents, the relevance of which is

unexplained. To the extent the court can divine any substantive assertions from plaintiffs’

response, it is at a minimum apparent, however, that plaintiff has failed to include any final

Case 4:10-cv-00090-PJH Document 9 Filed 03/03/10 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

decision issued by an ALJ, or any documents that demonstrate plaintiff’s request for a

hearing with an ALJ. In view of this, and the additional reference plaintiff’s filing makes to

the fact that he is pursuing a “broad spectrum ‘Civil Complaint,’” the court accordingly

screens plaintiff’s complaint and his attendant in forma pauperis application, pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1915. 

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), "[a]ny court of the United States may authorize the

commencement . . . of any suit . . . without prepayment of fees and costs or security

therefor, by a person who makes affidavit that he is unable to pay such costs or give

security therefor." In reviewing an application to proceed in forma pauperis, the court may

dismiss a case sua sponte if the court determines that the party applying for in forma

pauperis status has filed a frivolous action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); Jackson v.

Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1989). For purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915, a frivolous

claim is one that lacks an arguable basis in either law or fact. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490

U.S. 319, 325 (1989). Dismissal on these grounds are often made sua sponte prior to the

issuance of process, so as to spare prospective defendants the inconvenience and

expense of answering such complaints. Id. at 324. Where a litigant is acting pro se and

the court finds the litigant's complaint frivolous within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. §

1915(e)(2), the court must give the litigant notice of the deficiencies of the complaint and an

opportunity to amend before final dismissal, unless it is absolutely clear that the

deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by amendment. See Noll v. Carlson, 809

F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987); Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1135-37 (9th Cir. 1987).

Here, as noted, the gravamen of plaintiff’s case is difficult to discern, as the vast

majority of allegations are nonsensical. Plaintiff alleges, for example, that he is demanding

“the acessment [sic] be recovered under the ‘Safety Act’ of [his] ‘Trust Liquidation’ attempt

of April 15, 2004,” and that he seeks the “impeachment of G.W. Bush,” and that plaintiff

went “overseas to cut out the Appellate Justices” in relation to certain case citations. See

Docket No. 1, at page 3 (“Complaint”). The complaint then recites a litany of disjointed

Case 4:10-cv-00090-PJH Document 9 Filed 03/03/10 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

statutory citations, none of which are tied together via coherent allegations of any kind. 

See generally Complaint. As a result, it is impossible to discern from plaintiff's complaint

the actual legal theories under which he seeks relief. Plaintiff alleges no facts in support of

his complaint, states no basis for the court’s subject matter jurisdiction, and does not

identify any recognizable causes of action. 

As such, plaintiff has failed to set forth "a short and plain statement of the claim

showing that the pleader is entitled to relief" as required by Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure. Accordingly, pursuant to its authority under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the

court hereby DISMISSES plaintiff's complaint, and plaintiff's request to proceed in forma

pauperis is DENIED.

The court will, however, allow plaintiff an opportunity to file an amended complaint. 

For that amended complaint to be successful, plaintiff must: allege a basis for federal

subject matter jurisdiction; allege separate causes of action; allege a violation of federal

statutory or constitutional law as a basis for each cause of action; and allege facts showing

each defendant's personal involvement in the wrongful act alleged in each cause of action,

as well as plaintiff's harm or injury. 

Any amended complaint must be filed no later than April 1, 2010. If no timely

amended complaint is filed, the case will be dismissed with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 3, 2010 ______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:10-cv-00090-PJH Document 9 Filed 03/03/10 Page 3 of 3