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.

Diana Lee Wallach Lorretz v. Harry S. Truman and Dept. of Ed.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


May 31, 2012

DIANA LEE WALLACH LORRETZ,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
HARRY S. TRUMAN AND DEPT. OF ED., LAW ENFORCEMENT, DEPT. OF STATE,
DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Anthony J. Battaglia U.S. District Judge

Order Denying Renewed Motion to U.S.A. Government Proceed In Forma Pauperis, Dismissing includes FBI, SSA, Surgeon General, Dept. of First Amended Complaint for Failure to Defense, Homeland Security, United States State a Claim Coast Guard, All the Presidents in My Lifetime since and Started It Hired Nazis to Watch [Doc. No. 5]

On April 17, 2012, the Plaintiff, Diana Lee Wallach Lorretz, a non-prisoner proceeding pro se, commenced this action against the United States Government, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI"), Social Security Administration ("SSA"), Surgeon General, Department of Defense, Homeland Security, United States Coast Guard, all of the Presidents in Plaintiff's lifetime since S. Truman started it and hired Nazis to watch and Department of Education, Law Enforcement, and the Department of State. Plaintiff moved to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP") pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) and argued that an appointment of counsel is required pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). On April 18, 2012, this Court denied Plaintiff's motions and dismissed Plaintiff's Complaint for failure to state a claim. On April 30, 2012, the Plaintiff filed her First Amended Complaint ("FAC").

the reasons set forth below, the Court finds Plaintiff's renewed motion to proceed IFP insufficient and sua sponte DISMISSES Plaintiff's FAC for failure to state a claim.

Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

When a plaintiff moves to proceed IFP, the court first "grants or denies IFP status based on the plaintiff's financial resources alone and then independently determines whether to dismiss the complaint" pursuant to § 1915(e)(2). Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1226 n.5 (9th Cir. 1984). Plaintiff originally submitted an affidavit in support of the IFP motion indicating that she was unemployed, she received $952 per month in Social Security Survivor benefits, and had a checking account with $3000 plus dollars and a savings account with $200 plus dollars. Thus, this Court found that Plaintiff did not meet the § 1915(a) requirements and deniedPlaintiff's motion to proceed IFP.

In Plaintiff's FAC she includes a sentence that indicates her financial status has changed to $1 in her savings and $1 in her checking. Plaintiff has failed to submit an affidavit which includes a statement of all assets as required by § 1915(a). Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff does not meets the § 1915(a) requirements and DENIES Plaintiff's motion to proceed IFP.

Sua Sponte Dismissal for Failure to State a Claim

The FAC does not state a specific claim on which relief may be granted. A court may dismiss the case at any time if it determines the plaintiff failed to state a claim on which relief may be granted pursuant to § 1915(e)(2). Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998). "A plaintiff must allege facts, not simply conclusions, that show that an individual was personally involved in the deprivation of his civil rights." Id. A court will deny any motion that fails to present a legal and factual

Id.

In Plaintiff's original Complaint she failed to state facts against each defendant who allegedly violated her rights and she refused to provide the facts supporting her claims at that time. As a result, this Court dismissed Plaintiff's Complaint for failure to state a claim. In the FAC, the Plaintiff asked for

from the United States Government in the amount of twelve billion dollars. In the Complaint Plaintiff alleges, among other things, that defendants "use drugs and put them into plaintiff" and publish fictional records and books about her. Pl.'s Am. Compl. 1, Doc. No. 5. The FAC also contends that the

"tell[s] plaintiff where to go" and that newspapers report her "contacts." Id. at 2. The FAC once again fails to state a cognizable claim on which relief can be granted. Plaintiff's vague allegations that Defendants tell her where to go, put drugs in her, and write fictional records and books about her fails to allege specific constitutional or civil rights violations. As a result, Plaintiff has not presented a sufficient basis for a cognizable claim on which relief may be granted. Pursuant to § 1915(e)(2), the Court DISMISSES the Complaint without prejudice for failure to state a claim.

Conclusion

For the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's renewed motion to proceed IFP DISMISSES the FAC without prejudice for failure to state a claim. The Plaintiff has thirty (30) days to submit a Second Amended Complaint correcting the deficiencies noted herein. Failure to do so will result in the Court's dismissal of this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20120531

© 1992-2012 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.