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.

Anthony Wiley, Sr v. the State of California

November 30, 2011

ANTHONY WILEY, SR.,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Jennifer L. Thurston United States Magistrate Judge

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED (Doc. 8) COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE

Plaintiff Anthony Wiley, Sr. ("Plaintiff') seeks to proceed pro se and in forma pauperis in this action, which he commenced on May 27, 2011. (Doc. 1.) On July 25, 2011, the Court screened Plaintiff's complaint and found that it did not state cognizable claims. (Doc. 7.) The Court granted Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint to cure the defeiciencies identified in the order. (Id.) On August 15, 2011, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint. (Doc. 8.)

After screening Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint, the Court finds that despite the explicit recitation of the deficiencies of Plaintiff's original complaint, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate any violation of federal law.

I. SCREENING REQUIREMENT

When a plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court is required to review the complaint, and shall dismiss the case at any time if the Court determines that the allegation of poverty is untrue, or the action or appeal is "frivolous, malicious or fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or ... seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief." 28 U.S.C.1915(e)(2). A claim is frivolous "when the facts alleged arise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible, whether or not there are judicially noticeable facts available to contradict them." Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32--33 (1992).

II. Pleading Standards

General rules for pleading complaints are governed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A pleading stating a claim for relief must include a statement affirming the court's jurisdiction, "a short and plain statement of the claim showing the pleader is entitled to relief; and . . . a demand for the relief sought, which may include relief in the alternative or different types of relief." Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a). The Federal Rules adopt a flexible pleading policy, and pro se pleadings are held to "less stringent standards" than pleadings drafted by attorneys. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 521--21 (1972). However, a complaint must give fair notice and state the elements of the plaintiff's claim in a plain and succinct manner. Jones v. Cmty Redevelopment Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir.1984).

"[T]he pleading standard Rule 8 announces does not require 'detailed factual allegations,' but it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007)). "[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557). "[A] complaint [that] pleads facts that are 'merely consistent with' a defendant's liability . . . 'stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief.'" Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557). Further, although a court must accept as true all factual allegations contained in a complaint, a court need not accept a plaintiff's legal conclusions as true. Id. "Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice." Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325, (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227--28 (9th Cir. 1984). Accordingly, the court may dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327.

III. DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

At the outset, we note that Plaintiff's twenty-seven page complaint resembles his previous complaint insofar as the averments contained in paragraphs are repetitive, conclusory, and are at best difficult to follow. As a result, it is difficult to discern any coherent set of facts that support Plaintiff's claims. As far as can be discerned, Plaintiff alleges as follows. Plaintiff states that he is a disabled American citizen who previously manufactured "young adolescent wagons and carts" in order to support himself. (Doc. 8 at 4.) Plaintiff states he lost his business which appears to be the result of several seemingly independent events occurring in 2011. (Id. at 9.) Plaintiff's descriptions of these events include but are not limited to allegations that:

(1) Plaintiff was unlawfully arrested and falsely imprisoned by the Kern County Sheriff's Department, (Id. at 4, 14.);

(2) Plaintiff was improperly named in a civil suit brought by Defendant Producers Dairy Foods, Inc., (hereinafter "Producers") which was later dismissed on May 31, 2011, (Id. at 4, 8.);

(3) Judges for the Kern County Superior Court acted improperly in that they allowed defendants to conspire and build a fraudulent complaint against Plaintiff and improperly allowed both criminal and civil actions to precede against Plaintiff, (Id. at 5, 6, 8, 12, 15.);

(4) A clerk employed by the Superior Court of Kern County denied him the right to file a motion alleging various errors in a civil proceeding and to file ...


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.