Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05572/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05572-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jeffrey Dahmer
Defendant
Charles Manson
Defendant
Jonathan Lee Riches
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 G:\PRO-SE\MJJ\CR.07\riches18.dsm.wpd

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JONATHAN LEE RICHES,

Plaintiff,

 v.

JEFFREY DAHMER, et al.,

Defendants. ____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 07-5572 MJJ (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiff, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this pro se complaint against

Jeffrey Dahmer, Charles Manson and “Dr. Blood’s Orgy of Organs Mansfield Ohio.” 

A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a prisoner seeks

redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. §

1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any cognizable claims and dismiss any claims that

are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seek monetary

relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See id. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings

must, however, be liberally construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699

(9th Cir. 1988). To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential

elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and

(2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See

West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

Sections 1915A and 1915(e)(2) accord judges the unusual power to pierce the veil of

the complaint's factual allegations and dismiss as frivolous those claims whose factual

Case 3:07-cv-05572-MJJ Document 4 Filed 12/03/07 Page 1 of 2
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

G:\PRO-SE\MJJ\CR.07\riches18.dsm.wpd 2

contentions are clearly baseless. See Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32 (1992). 

Examples are claims describing fantastic or delusional scenarios with which federal district

judges are all too familiar. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 328 (1989). To pierce the

veil of the complaint's factual allegations means that a court is not bound, as it usually is

when making a determination based solely on the pleadings, to accept without question the

truth of the plaintiff's allegations. See Denton, 504 U.S. at 32. A finding of factual

frivolousness is appropriate when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the

wholly incredible, whether or not there are judicially noticeable facts available to contradict

them. See id. at 32-33. 

Plaintiff alleges defendants are in “a vast conspiracy with Halloween officials and

trick or treaters” to take his blood and organs and “feast on them.” He alleges Charles

Manson “wants to eat my liver for his last meal,” and that “Dr. Blood’s Orgy of Organs in

Mansfield Ohio is a company hired by the Jeff Dahmer estate” to come to plaintiff’s prison

and steal his organs. Plaintiff seeks an order from this Court “to stop the theft of my organs

and to suspend Dr. Blood’s cadaver licence.” As plaintiff’s allegations are clearly baseless,

irrational or wholly incredible, the complaint will be dismissed as frivolous under sections

1915A and 1915(e)(2).

For the foregoing reasons, this action is DISMISSED. 

The Clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 11/28/07 _____________________________

MARTIN J. JENKINS

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-05572-MJJ Document 4 Filed 12/03/07 Page 2 of 2