Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

BLIGHT v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA

United States District Court, Northern District of California


April 8, 2003

HARVEY BLIGHT, ASSOCIATES OF FAITH, PLAINTIFFS,
v.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Susan Illston, United States District Judge

ORDER OF DISMISSAL AND DENIAL OF APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
On March 3, 2003, plaintiff Harvey Blight filed the above-captioned pro per complaint against the State of California, County of Santa Clara, Avenidas and Does 1-5. On March 3, 2003 the plaintiff also filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), the Court must review the complaint to determine whether it states a claim upon which relief can be granted. The Court is unable to determine the nature of the complaint, although plaintiffs appear to have grievances with the courts, law enforcement personnel, private law firms, the California State Bar, the Republican and Democratic parties of San Francisco, the National Labor Relations Board, the American Civil Liberties Union, the United States Department of Justice, employees of an organization named Avenidas and others, for unidentified misconduct in the judicial process and in employment.

A pro per plaintiffs complaint must be liberally construed (Balistrei v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990)). However, in this instance the Court cannot discern what plaintiffs are trying to sue for and finds that plaintiffs have failed to state facts which could entitle them to relief. "A pro se litigant must be given leave to amend his or her complaint, and some notice of its deficiencies, unless it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by amendment." Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995). Here, the Court is unable to determine from plaintiffs' complaint any plausible cause of action that could be pled, were the plaintiffs given leave to amend, and is unable to provide plaintiffs with notice of deficiencies which might be cured. Having failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, plaintiffs application to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED and the action is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

JUDGMENT

In accordance with the Court's Order of April 9, 2003, judgment is hereby entered.

IT IS SO ADJUDGED.

20030408

© 1992-2003 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.