Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-02728/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-02728-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
50 States and the City of Washington
Defendant
All State Legislatures of the 50 States
Defendant
Tyrone Hurt
Plaintiff
U.S. Department of Justice
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

TYRONE HURT,

Plaintiff,

 v.

50 States and the City of Washington, 

All State Legislatures of the 50 States, 

and U.S. Department of Justice,

Defendants. /

No. C 12-02728 WHA

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED

COMPLAINT; DENYING

REQUEST TO PROCEED IN

FORMA PAUPERIS

Pro se plaintiff Tyrone Hurt’s hand-written complaint was dismissed in part because it

was largely illegible. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis was thus denied,

“without prejudice to refiling once plaintiff has submitted a complaint that is legible” (Dkt. No.

11). Rather than file a legible complaint, however, plaintiff appealed the order denying him

leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The appeal was dismissed as untimely. Plaintiff then filed a

letter, addressed to the Clerk, requesting that the complaint be forwarded back to him “to be

made legible.” By order dated December 10, plaintiff was warned that such communications to

the Court were improper. The letter was construed as a request to file an amended complaint. 

Plaintiff was warned that failure to file a cognizable legal claim by January 2, 2013, would result

in dismissal of this action with prejudice. 

Plaintiff has filed a hand-written motion entitled “amendment to the complaint.” The

document states that plaintiff seeks leave to amend his complaint but does not state a single

claim for relief. Nor are there any relevant facts alleged under the section heading “statement of

the facts of the case.” Plaintiff’s motion is essentially limited to a statement that plaintiff moves

to amend the complaint and an “affidavit of poverty” to proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff’s

Case 3:12-cv-02728-WHA Document 26 Filed 01/03/13 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

motion for leave to amend the complaint is denied, as plaintiff has not stated a single claim for

relief. Plaintiff was clearly warned that any proposed amendment must state a cognizable claim

for relief. He has failed to do so. Plaintiff’s frivolous motion to file an amended complaint is

DENIED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.

Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED. Plaintiff’s “affidavit” does not

include sufficient detail regarding plaintiff’s ability to pay. Plaintiff’s conclusory statement that

“because of [his] poverty,” he cannot pay the filing fee and that he believes he is entitled to the

relief he seeks is insufficient. 

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 3, 2013. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:12-cv-02728-WHA Document 26 Filed 01/03/13 Page 2 of 2