United States District Court, E.D. California
GINNY R. BURNS, Plaintiff,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, SPORTS ILLUSTRATED, and NBA/NFL Defendants.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING DISMISSIAL
OF PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT
BARBARA A. McAULIFFE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Ginny Burns, who is proceeding without counsel, filed her
complaint on March 29, 2017. Plaintiff's complaint does
not identify a legal basis for her claims, but Plaintiff
checks over 39 boxes on her civil cover sheet to characterize
the nature of her complaint. Plaintiff's Complaint is
before the Court for screening.
before the Court is Plaintiff's application to proceed in
forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Although
Plaintiff has submitted a declaration that makes the showing
required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), the Court will not at
this time rule on Plaintiff's request to proceed in forma
pauperis because the Court must recommend summary dismissal
with prejudice of this action.
Court is required to screen complaints brought by persons
proceeding in pro per. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
Plaintiff's Complaint, or any portion thereof, is subject
to dismissal if it is frivolous or malicious, if it fails to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or if it
seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from
such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 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). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim
as frivolous where it is based on an indisputably meritless
legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly
baseless. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327. The critical
inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully
pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See
Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1989);
Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227.
complaint must contain more than a “formulaic
recitation of the elements of a cause of action;” it
must contain factual allegations sufficient to “raise a
right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007).
“The pleading must contain something more . . . than .
. . a statement of facts that merely creates a suspicion [of]
a legally cognizable right of action.” Id.,
quoting 5 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and
Procedure 1216, pp. 235-235 (3d ed. 2004). “[A]
complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as
true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on
its face.'” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
662, 678 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570).
“A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff
pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged.” Id.
reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court must
accept as true the allegations of the complaint in question,
Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hospital Trustees, 425
U.S. 738, 740 (1976), construe the pleading in the light most
favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in the
plaintiff's favor. Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395
U.S. 411, 421 (1969). However, the court need not accept as
true allegations that are fanciful, fantastic or delusional;
such allegations are by definition frivolous.
Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327
various points in her complaint, Plaintiff has named the
following parties as Defendants: (1) the “NBA/NFL
Genius, ” (2) Sports Illustrated, (3) Harpo Industries,
Office Depot; and (6) the United States. Plaintiff makes the
following incoherent allegation in stating the nature of her
claim: “Not suppose white house memory to bank account
which check or allotment me under bureaus also C.D. account
under Chase bank even some loan to commercial
bank.” In stating the relief she seeks, Plaintiff
states “no get all lawyers to help with it private
account which said could these claims (unintelligible)
someone have seen them lately saw where claim pass or spent
my money which I don't believe.” Even under the
most liberal reading, Plaintiff's allegations are not
coherently set forth.
on the Court screening analysis, Plaintiff's complaint
should be dismissed without leave to amend for a number of
reasons. First, Plaintiff's complaint wholly violates
Rule 8. Fed. R. Civ. P 8 sets forth general rules of pleading
in the federal courts. Complaints are required to set a forth
(1) the grounds upon which the court's jurisdiction
rests, (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing
entitlement to relief; and (3) a demand for judgment for the
relief plaintiff seeks. Plaintiff's complaint meets none
of these requirements. Plaintiff fails to adequately allege a
basis for the Court's jurisdiction, nor does she list any
causes of action or identify any relief requested. Plaintiff
has also failed to allege any facts that suggest a violation
of the Constitution or the laws of the United States.
detailed factual allegations are not required,
“[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of
action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not
suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949
(citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. at
555. Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual
matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim that is
plausible on its face.'” Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949. Because Plaintiff has failed
to comply with the requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2),
Plaintiff's complaint should therefore be dismissed.
Plaintiff's claim is frivolous. The substance of her
claim concerns her bank account at Chase bank, yet her action
is brought against Defendants including the NFL, MGM, and
Oprah. These allegations are clearly baseless, irrational or
wholly incredible claims based on delusional scenarios with
which federal district judges are all too familiar. See
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 328 (1989). To pierce
the veil of the complaint's factual allegations means
that a court is not bound, as it usually is when making a
determination based solely on the pleadings, to accept
without question the truth of the plaintiff's
allegations. See Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25,
32 (1992). A finding of factual frivolousness is appropriate
when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or
the wholly incredible, whether or not there are judicially
noticeable facts available to contradict them. See