Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03152/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03152-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
California State Supreme Court
Defendant
City of San Jose
Defendant
Ronald Ward Jr.
Plaintiff

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

27

28

1

The matter was reassigned to the undersigned on August 23, 2007.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RONALD WARD JR.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CALIFORNIA STATE SUPREME COURT,

et al.,

Defendants /

No. C-07-3152 MMC

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT;

DENYING APPLICATION TO PROCEED

IN FORMA PAUPERIS

Before the Court is plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and his

complaint, both of which were filed June 14, 2007.1

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), where a plaintiff seeks to proceed in forma

pauperis, the district court must dismiss the complaint if the court determines that the

complaint is frivolous or malicious, or that the plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which

relief can be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), (ii).

Here, plaintiff’s complaint falls within the category of pleadings identified in

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii). Plaintiff’s claim, in its entirety, reads: “To whom it may concern

regarding a ‘civil decision/case judgement June 6th, 2006; I Ronald Ward Jr. request a

motion for magistrate judge by way of Rule 72(a) of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure under

Case 3:07-cv-03152-MMC Document 8 Filed 09/13/07 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

27

28

2

Statue [sic] 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) & Civil Local Rule 72-2 in response to old Docket

#3:/06CV-05365 MMC to grant ‘NEW’ information. Note: This is within the (one) year

ruling!!” (See Compl.) In the accompanying Civil Cover Sheet, plaintiff checked a box to

indicate the instant complaint is an action alleging “personal injury.”

Liberally construed, plaintiff’s complaint appears to challenge rulings made in Ward

v. City of San Jose, C 06-5365, which action was dismissed for the reason that plaintiff had

failed to either pay the filing fee or submit a completed application to proceed in forma

pauperis.

To the extent plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the judgment entered in the earlierfiled action, plaintiff must pursue such relief in that action.

Accordingly, the instant complaint is hereby DISMISSED, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(B), and plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis is hereby DENIED

as moot.

The Clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 13, 2007 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-03152-MMC Document 8 Filed 09/13/07 Page 2 of 2