Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

Lewis anderson v. W. Samuel Hamrick

November 7, 2011

LEWIS ANDERSON,
CDCR #P-97405 PLAINTIFFS,
v.
W. SAMUEL HAMRICK, JR.,
DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Barry Ted Moskowitz United States District Judge

ORDER:

(1) GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS; [ECF No. 3];

(2) SUA SPONTE DISMISSING COMPLAINT AS FRIVOLOUS PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT; § 1915(e)(2) & § 1915A; and

(3) DENYING MOTION TO FILE SECOND AMENDED WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS; MOTION TO REMAND AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [ECF Nos 6, 8, 10, 12]

Plaintiff, Lewis Anderson, currently incarcerated at Calipatria State Prison located in Calipatria, California and proceeding pro se, has filed an action entitled "Complaint for Negligence Based on Plaintiff's Unable to Determine Definitely which Persons are Responsible." In addition, Plaintiff has filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis ("IFP") [ECF No. 3], a Motion for Court to Order a Copy of Plaintiff's Application to File a Second Amended Writ of Habeas Corpus, two Motions to Remand, Consolidate and Redress Writs of Habeas Corpus, and a Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF Nos. 6, 8, 10, 12]. Plaintiff seeks damages against Defendant United States District Court ("USDC") and W. Samuel Hamrick in the amount of $138,843,500.00. (Compl. at 3.)

I. Motion to Proceed IFP

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 $350. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed despite a party's failure to prepay the entire fee only if the party is granted leave to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Prisoners granted leave to proceed IFP however, remain obligated to pay the entire fee in installments, regardless of whether the action is ultimately dismissed for any reason. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) & (2).

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, as amended by the Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA"), a prisoner seeking leave to proceed IFP must submit a "certified copy of the trust fund account statement (or institutional equivalent) for the prisoner for the six-month period immediately preceding the filing of the complaint." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). The Court finds that Plaintiff has submitted an affidavit which complies with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), and that he has attached a certified copy of his trust account statement pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2) and S.D. CAL.

CIVLR 3.2. Plaintiff's trust account statement shows that he has insufficient funds from which to pay filing fees at this time. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(4). Therefore, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed IFP [ECF No. 3] and assesses no initial partial filing fee per 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). However, the entire $350 balance of the filing fees mandated shall be collected and forwarded to the Clerk of the Court pursuant to the installment payment provisions set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1).

II. Initial Screening per 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and § 1915A(b)

A. Standard of Review

The PLRA also obligates the Court to review complaints filed by all persons proceeding IFP and by those, like Plaintiff, who are "incarcerated or detained in any facility [and] accused of, sentenced for, or adjudicated delinquent for, violations of criminal law or the terms or conditions of parole, probation, pretrial release, or diversionary program," "as soon as practicable after docketing." See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and § 1915A(b). Under these provisions, the Court must sua sponte dismiss any IFP or prisoner complaint, or any portion thereof, which is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or which seeks damages from defendants who are immune. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and § 1915A.

Plaintiff seeks to hold Defendants liable on the grounds that "someone within the jurisdictional governmental body of the court, or ... the Court Clerk" had "willfully or recklessly or negligently" transferred two of his previous cases to the Central District of California, Eastern Division.*fn1 (Compl. at 1, 3.) Plaintiff claims this "anonymous person" or the court clerk have made "attempts to deceive the Courts and keep the truth hidden." (Pl.'s Mot. for Court to Order Copy of Plaintiff's Application at 2.)

A complaint is frivolous "where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). Here, the Court finds Plaintiff's claims to be frivolous under ยง 1915A because they lack even "an arguable basis either in law or in fact," and ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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