Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01764/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01764-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Napoleon Carter
Plaintiff
J. Walker
Defendant

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NAPOLEON CARTER, 

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-07-1764 GEB KJM P

vs.

J. WALKER,

Defendant. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Petitioner is a state prison inmate proceeding pro se with a civil rights action

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1915. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 72-302 pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

The in forma pauperis statute permits federal district courts to

authorize the commencement, prosecution or

defense of any suit, action or proceeding, civil or

criminal . . . without prepayment of fees or security

therefor, by a person who submits an affidavit that

includes a statement of all assets such prisoner

possesses that the person is unable to pay such fees

or give security therefor. Such affidavit shall state

the nature of the action . . . and affiant’s belief that

the person is entitled to redress.

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). A court may deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis if it appears from

Case 2:07-cv-01764-GEB -KJM Document 5 Filed 12/06/07 Page 1 of 3
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

2

the face of the proposed complaint that the action is frivolous. Minetti v. Port of Seattle, 152

F.3d 1113 (9th Cir. 1998). In determining whether an action is frivolous, the court may “pierce

the veil of the complaint’s factual allegations and dismiss those claims whose factual contentions

are clearly baseless.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989). Such allegations include

those “describing fantastic or delusional scenarios, claims with which federal district judges are

all too familiar.” Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 328; see also Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33

(1992) (finding of frivolousness appropriate when allegations are irrational or wholly

incredible).

Plaintiff alleges that after he was placed in housing unit C4-228, he was “affected

with nest egg” in the cell window and that his personal seed has been removed. 

The court finds these allegations frivolous. 

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma

pauperis be denied and the action be dismissed. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951

F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: December 5, 2007. 

2

Case 2:07-cv-01764-GEB -KJM Document 5 Filed 12/06/07 Page 2 of 3
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

3

cart1764.56

Case 2:07-cv-01764-GEB -KJM Document 5 Filed 12/06/07 Page 3 of 3