Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-04004/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-04004-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
ABC Network
Defendant
Eric Gerold
Plaintiff
United States Government
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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ERIC GEROLD,

Plaintiff,

 v.

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT,

ABC NETWORK

Defendants. /

No. C-07-04004 EDL

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO

TAKE PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

UNDER SUBMISSION AND TO DISMISS

COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

On August 3, 2007, Plaintiff filed a complaint naming the United States government and

ABC Network as defendants. On the same day, Plaintiff also filed an application to proceed in

forma pauperis (“IFP”). Plaintiff has not consented to the jurisdiction of a United States magistrate

judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). Accordingly, this case will be reassigned to a district court

judge with the following report and recommendation. 

I. IFP Application

The Court may permit an individual to file an action in federal court without prepayment of

fees when the Plaintiff has demonstrated his or her poverty. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). Leave to

proceed in forma pauperis is properly granted when the plaintiff has demonstrated his poverty and

his complaint states a claim for which relief can be granted and is not frivolous or malicious. 28

U.S.C. § 1915(a), (d). 

In his IFP application, Mr. Gerold states that his gross salary per month is $10,000.00 and his

employer is Apple One. Id. at 1. He is unmarried, and does not receive income from other sources. 

Id. at 2. He does not own a home or a car, but has a bank account with Wells Fargo containing

$850.00. Id. at 3. His monthly expenses total $750.00, and he has no other debts. Id.

Case 4:07-cv-04004-PJH Document 5 Filed 08/29/07 Page 1 of 4
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

While Plaintiff wrote “$10,000.00" in response to questions of gross salary per month, he

appears to have made a common mistake and reported his yearly income instead of his monthly

income. He owns no house or automobile, and only has $850.00 to his name, which is inconsistent

with earning $120,000.00 per year. The Court therefore concludes that Plaintiff earns $10,000.00

per year, rather than per month, so his income only barely exceeds his expenses and places him just

below the 2007 poverty guideline of $10,210.00 for a one-person household, as set by the

Department of Health and Services for administrative purposes. See Annual Update of the HHS

Poverty Guidelines, 72 Fed. Reg. 3,147-8 (January 24, 2007). However, Plaintiff has not

demonstrated that he has presented a claim that is not frivolous. 

II. Merits of Plaintiff’s Complaint

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court is required to dismiss an in forma pauperis

complaint which fails to state a claim. See Marks v. Solcum, 98 F.3d 494, 495 (9th Cir. 1996). 

The Court “may deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis at the outset if it appears from the face of

the proposed complaint that the action is frivolous or without merit.” Tripati v. First National Bank

& Trust, 821 F.2d 1368, 1370 (9th Cir. 1987). In making this determination, the Court assesses the

factual and legal basis of the asserted wrong, “however inartfully pleaded,” to determine whether a

basis for federal jurisdiction exists. See Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th Cir.

1984). However, “[a] court may dismiss as frivolous complaints reciting bare legal conclusions

with no suggestion of supporting facts, or postulating events and circumstances of a wholly fanciful

kind.” Id. (citing Taylor v. Gibson, 529 F.2d 709, 717 (5th Cir.1976)). 

Plaintiff’s complaint in narrative form is difficult to comprehend. However, the complaint

appears to alleges that Defendants are liable for the failure of the government, local police, and

hospitals to respond properly by informing the public of a type of terrorism, which Plaintiff

describes as electronic harassment, invasion of privacy, and personal injury relating to “a small glass

capsule containing a bug listening device and another containing a small speaker implanted in

[Plaintiff’s] head.” See Compl. at 1-2. Plaintiff further alleges that these authorities likely neglected

such personal injury to “many other citizens.”

Case 4:07-cv-04004-PJH Document 5 Filed 08/29/07 Page 2 of 4
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

Here, Plaintiff’s complaint is too conclusory to state a cognizable claim against any

defendant. Plaintiff has alleged no facts that could possibly relate to the ABC Network and

accordingly Plaintiff has failed to state a claim against it. Plaintiff’s claims against the “local

police” are not properly brought against the United States government. Plaintiff’s claims against the

“hospitals” are also not properly brought against the United States government as to community or

private hospitals. Even if the hospitals Plaintiff alleges caused him injury were federal hospitals,

Plaintiff has failed to allege facts that overcome the government’s sovereign immunity. Plaintiff’s

complaint is also devoid of facts or allegations establishing causation and harm or any information

about the basis for the claim and the Court’s jurisdiction. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). Rather, it

appears to postulate circumstances of a “wholly fanciful kind.” Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1228. In

addition, Plaintiff has failed to allege grounds for bringing this matter as a class action, if that was

his intention. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a). 

III. Leave to Amend

A court should only dismiss a complaint without leave to amend when “the court can rule out

any possibility, however unlikely it might be, that an amended complaint would succeed in stating a

claim.” Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1128 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting Gomez v. USAA Federal

Savings Bank, 171 F.3d 794 (2d Cir. 1999)). In this case, the Court recommends that Plaintiff be

given one more chance to amend his complaint, and, accordingly, that Plaintiff’s complaint be 

dismissed with leave to amend. 

The Court also recommends that the following instruction be given to Plaintiff:

An amended complaint shall contain a simple statement of why Plaintiff believes the federal

court has the power (i.e., the jurisdiction) to decide this case, a clear and concise explanation of what

Plaintiff believes Defendants did that was unlawful and an explanation of what laws Plaintiff

believes were violated by Defendants’ conduct. Plaintiff can find more information on what needs

to be in a complaint in the Pro Se Handbook, which is available on the district court’s website,

http://www.cand.uscourts.gov. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint that contains a short

and plain statement of the claim and the basis for federal court jurisdiction, this Court will dismiss

Case 4:07-cv-04004-PJH Document 5 Filed 08/29/07 Page 3 of 4
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

4

Plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice. 

IV. Conclusion

Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the Court recommends that the following Order be

entered:

It Is Hereby Ordered that:

1. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed with leave to amend; 

2. Plaintiff shall file his amended complaint no later than September 30, 2007; and

3. Plaintiff is ordered to amend or correct his application to proceed in forma pauperis

to reflect his monthly income.

Any party may file objections to this report and recommendation with the District Judge within ten

days after being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 72(b); Civil

Local Rule 72-3.

IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.

Dated: August 29, 2007

 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:07-cv-04004-PJH Document 5 Filed 08/29/07 Page 4 of 4