Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00736/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00736-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Khalafala Khalafala
Plaintiff
Unknown
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

KHALAFALA KHALAFALA,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-07-736 WBS KJM P

vs.

UNKNOWN, et al., 

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

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

Plaintiff 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). 

This court must determine whether the action is frivolous.

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-00736-WBS -KJM Document 8 Filed 10/26/07 Page 1 of 2
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). 

Plaintiff has named as defendants Michael Chertoff, Secretary of Homeland

Security, and unknown agents of ICE and alleges that the immigration detainer lodged against

him is incorrect in significant ways as a result of a conspiracy to deprive him of his refugee

status and to deport him. This court has no jurisdiction over this action, which appears to

challenge the determination to commence immigration proceedings against plaintiff. 8 U.S.C. §

1252(g). 

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed as frivolous. 

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: October 26, 2007. 

2

khal0736.56

Case 2:07-cv-00736-WBS -KJM Document 8 Filed 10/26/07 Page 2 of 2