Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-06495/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-06495-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Daniel Zarazua Ramos
Plaintiff
World Savings
Defendant

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DANIEL ZARAZUA RAMOS,

Plaintiff,

 v.

WORLD SAVINGS, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 07-06495 WHA

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION

Pro se plaintiff Daniel Zarazua Ramos has filed a “petition for libel of review of an

administrative judgment” against “World Savings, U.S. Vessel, Does, Roes, and Moes 1–100 et

al US Vessels.” This filing is identical to one filed months earlier as a miscellaneous action

before the Honorable Charles Breyer. Judge Breyer first dismissed the action with 20 days

leave to amend, stating that “[p]laintiff’s papers are incomprehensible and it is impossible for

the Court to discern the basis for plaintiff’s lawsuit” (C 07-80249 CRB, Dkt. No. 2). Plaintiff

Ramos never amended the complaint, which was therefore dismissed with prejudice (C 07-

80249 CRB, Dkt. No. 4). He has since re-filed the same complaint in the instant action. 

Plaintiff has also filed a similar complaint against First Federal Bank, which was dismissed with

prejudice (C 07-6494, Dkt. No. 19).

Once an application for in forma pauperis is filed, the complaint may be dismissed prior

to service of process if the claims are frivolous or malicious. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S.

319, 237 (1989); 28 US.C. 1915(e). A claim is frivolous under 29 U.S.C. 1915(d) when a claim

is premised on an indisputably meritless legal theory or is clearly lacking any factual basis. A

Case 3:07-cv-06495-WHA Document 11 Filed 03/13/08 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

2

claim is malicious when it is duplicative of prior litigation. Bailey v. Johnson, 846 F.2d 1019,

1021 (6h Cir. 1988). This order finds that Ramos’ complaint falls within both categories. First,

Ramos, who has named lending institution World Savings a defendant, alleges that “all parties

are U.S. VESSELS and fit the legal definition of a U.S. VESSEL,” and further allegations of a

similar nature. He fails, however, to allege any claim under state or federal law. The entire

“complaint” makes no sense whatsoever. Second, Ramos fails to allege any administrative

decision. Third, claim is duplicative of prior litigation.

As stated in the order dismissing action in Ramos v. First Federal Bank, plaintiff has a

history of filing frivolous and incomprehensible complaints (C 07-6494, Dkt. No. 19). Mr.

Ramos has been cautioned against filing any more such actions. Moreover, because this action

has the trappings of a debt-elimination Internet scam, defendant is advised to report any

possible misconduct to the proper authorities.

For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

1915(e)(2)(B). The Clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 13, 2008. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:07-cv-06495-WHA Document 11 Filed 03/13/08 Page 2 of 2