IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
June 19, 2009
KENNETH A. SMITH, PLAINTIFF,
SACRAMENTO CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 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).
Plaintiff has submitted a declaration that makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). However, a court may deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis if it appears from 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). Such allegations include those "describing fantastic or delusional scenarios, claims with which federal district judges are all too familiar." Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 328; see also Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992) (finding of frivolousness appropriate when allegations are irrational or wholly incredible).
Plaintiff has filed a nearly incomprehensible, 146 page complaint, which consists of hand written sections interspersed with copies of pages from the annotated California Penal Code. From what the court can determine, plaintiff is challenging law enforcement contacts with him, beginning when he was nineteen years old, including the use of black magic against him. This complaint will be dismissed.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court assign a district judge to this case.
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, any party may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Any reply to the objections shall be served and filed within ten days after service of the objections. The parties are 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).
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.