Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01120/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01120-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Tanny Elizabeth Miner
Plaintiff
State of California
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

TANNY ELIZABETH MINER,

Plaintiff,

 v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

Defendant. /

No. C 07-01120 CRB

ORDER

Now before the Court is Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). 

A court may authorize a plaintiff to prosecute an action in federal court without prepayment

of fees or security if the plaintiff submits an affidavit showing that he or she is unable to pay

such fees. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Nonetheless, a court is under a continuing duty to

dismiss a case seeking to proceed without the prepayment of fees whenever it determines that

the action “(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be

granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

Here, the Court accepts Plaintiff’s representation that she cannot afford the court costs

for this action. Her application to proceed in forma pauperis is therefore GRANTED. The

Court further determines, however, that Plaintiff has not yet stated a claim on which relief

can be granted. 

Case 3:07-cv-01120-CRB Document 4 Filed 03/20/07 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

Plaintiff’s complaint apparently stems from a dispute over the custody of her child,

Paola Calderon. Plaintiff’s complaint indicates that the California state courts have awarded

custody of the child to the father, Filber Calderon. Further, the complaint states that Plaintiff

has been ordered to pay child support. Plaintiff suggests that the father is abusive and is not

a proper guardian for Paola, and that her child support payments are merely a form of statesanctioned extortion.

It is not clear from the complaint who Plaintiff is suing, although her lawsuit generally

identifies the “State of California” as a defendant. She suggests that various public officials

have engaged in a conspiracy and that as a result of their collective actions “my child Paola

has been kidnapped [sic] and held for ransom . . . under the color of law.” Compl. at 3. She

vaguely alleges that “attorneys” have committed “barratry, collusion to committ [sic] fraud,

perjury and slander in open court.” She also alleges that various governmental bodies have

“admitted to collusion in the crimes,” including certain “representatives,” the “Commission

on judicial performance, the grand jury, state senate and assembly, the governors [sic] office

etc.” Id. She asserts that she has witnessed local commissioners committing “high crimes,”

such as “cover[ing] up of evidence . . . , falsifing [sic] minute orders, committing barratry,

making unlawful orders, [and] making idiotic and totally bizaare [sic] statements.” Id. at 1. 

She asserts that the actions of all of these public officials are contrary to the United States

Constitution, and she cites numerous cases for the proposition that public officials are not

immune from liability for their unconstitutional acts. She asserts a demand for $15 million.

The Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to set forth “a short and plain statement of the

claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Here, it is

impossible to determine from the face of Plaintiff’s complaint who is being sued or what

specific acts the defendants are alleged to have committed. “Conclusionary allegations,

unsupported by facts, [will be] rejected as insufficient to state a claim under the Civil Rights

Act.” Sherman v. Yakahi, 549 F.2d 1287, 1290 (9th Cir.1977). 

The Court nonetheless recognizes that it has “an obligation where the petitioner is pro

se, particularly in civil rights cases, to construe the pleadings liberally and to afford the

Case 3:07-cv-01120-CRB Document 4 Filed 03/20/07 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

G:\CRBALL\2007\1120\Order 1.wpd 3

petitioner the benefit of any doubt.” Bretz v. Kelman, 773 F.2d 1026, 1027 n.1 (9th Cir.

1985) (en banc). The Court therefore construes Plaintiff’s complaint as asserting a claim

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and alleging that state officials have violated her federal

constitutional rights. Moreover, under Ninth Circuit law, courts must “‘provide a pro se

litigant with notice of the deficiencies in his or her complaint’ to ensure that the litigant uses

the opportunity to amend effectively.” Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1136 (9th Cir.

1987) (quoting Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987)). The Court therefore

DISMISSES Plaintiff’s complaint, and hereby GRANTS Plaintiff leave to amend. In her

amended complaint, Plaintiff must: (1) identify each of the specific defendants whose actions

have caused Plaintiff constitutional harm, such that the defendants can be identified and

given an opportunity to respond to the charges against them; and (2) identify how each of

these defendants has engaged in allegedly unconstitutional action, by making reference to

specific acts or omissions that these various actors have committed. See Sherman v. Yakahi,

549 F.2d at 1290 (“The plaintiff must ‘allege with at least some degree of particularity overt

acts which defendants engaged in’ that support the plaintiff’s claim.” (quoting Powell v.

Workmen’s Comp. Bd., 327 F.2d 131, 137 (2d Cir.1964))). Upon the submission of an

amended complaint, the Court will again review the sufficiency of the pleading to see

whether Plaintiff may proceed on her pro se claim.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 20, 2007 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:07-cv-01120-CRB Document 4 Filed 03/20/07 Page 3 of 3