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.

AKINS v. SAN DIEGO COMMUNITY COLLEGE

United States District Court, S.D. California


December 28, 2005.

RODNEY E. AKINS SR. Plaintiff,
v.
SAN DIEGO COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT, Defendants.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: JOHN HOUSTON, Magistrate Judge

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS, AND ORDER SUA SPONTE DISMISSING COMPLAINT FOR FAILING TO STATE A CLAIM
On December 12, 2005, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. In his complaint, Plaintiff alleges he is being harassed, and treated unfairly and inhumanely by students, faculty and employees at San Diego Mesa College. Complaint at 1.

I. Legal Standard

  All parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in a district court of the United States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of $250. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed despite a plaintiff's failure to prepay the entire fee only if the plaintiff is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999).

  Notwithstanding payment of any filing fee or portion thereof, a complaint filed by any person seeking to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) is subject to a mandatory and sua sponte review and dismissal by the court to the extent it is "frivolous, malicious, failing to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeking monetary relief from a defendant immune from such relief." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2001) ("[T]he provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) are not limited to prisoners."); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) mandates that the Court reviewing a complaint filed pursuant to the in forma pauperis provisions of Section 1915 make and rule on its own motion to dismiss before directing that the complaint be served by the U.S. Marshal pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(c)(2). Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1127.

  A complaint will be considered frivolous, and therefore subject to dismissal under Section 1915(e)(2)(B), "where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); see also Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992). The Supreme Court, however, has held that a federal court cannot properly sua sponte dismiss an action commenced by an in forma pauperis applicant if the facts alleged in the complaint are merely "unlikely." Denton, 504 U.S. at 33. However, a complaint may be properly dismissed sua sponte if the allegations are found to be "fanciful," "fantastic," or "delusional," or if they "rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible." Id. (citing Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 325, 328). In addition, the Ninth Circuit provides that cases which "merely repeat[] pending or previously litigated claims" may be dismissed as frivolous. Caro v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 n. 2 (9th Cir. 1995). Moreover, if a case is classified as frivolous, there is no reason to grant leave to amend because a frivolous case, by definition, has no merit to the underlying action. Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1127 n. 8.

  II. Analysis

  In the complaint, Plaintiff alleges he is enrolled in classes at Mesa College and students on campus tell him to leave or quit, and play "recorded screaming noises as if to say that [Plaintiff's] 24 year old son was being tortured and beat up behind closed doors on campus." Complaint at 1. Plaintiff further alleges students and faculty have stuck him with "some kind of injectible device" and injected him with "germ, spit, urine, blood" and even syphilis and the flu. Id. He also alleges he was "hit with some kind of saline solution that probably has something to do with [his] blood pressure being so high," because his doctor prescribed medicine for high blood pressure and he was warned high blood pressure could lead to a heart attack or stroke. Id. at 2. Plaintiff alleges this amounts to attempted murder. Additionally, he alleges his work is destroyed, his food is tampered with and he suffers "physical attacks or `hits'" in the library, cafeteria, administrative office and classrooms. Id.

  Plaintiff fails to state under what legal theory he is suing and simply states he is sure his "Constitutional or Human Rights and or Civil rights have been violated and that the SDCCD is in violation of Federal Government Guidelines." Id. at 3. He further maintains his "rights as a student were violated under The San Diego Community College Policy 3100." Id. He seeks $30,000,000 in damages.

  Although in some cases it may be difficult to judge whether a plaintiff's factual allegations are truly "delusional" or merely "unlikely," this is not such a case. Denton, 504 U.S. at 33. In this Court's view, this case clearly "rises to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible." Id. Accordingly, this Court finds Plaintiff's complaint is "frivolous" as that term is defined by the United States Supreme Court and, accordingly, dismisses the complaint without leave to amend. Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1127 n. 8.

  III. Conclusion and Order

  Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The instant complaint is sua sponte DISMISSED without leave to amend as frivolous; and
2. Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED as moot.
20051228

© 1992-2006 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.