United States District Court, C.D. California
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY COURT SHOULD NOT RECOMMEND
DENIAL OF REQUEST TO PROCEED WITHOUT PREPAYMENT OF FILING
G. ROSENBERG United States Magistrate Judge
reasons set forth below, the court orders Plaintiff to show
cause on or before August 10, 2017, why this
court should not recommend denial of his request to proceed
without prepayment of filing fees.
6, 2017, Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, filed
a civil rights complaint along with a Request to Proceed in
forma pauperis (“IFP Request”).
Plaintiff's name is Joshua Neiman Thomas. However, the
complaint contains one claim that a person named
“Murmur, ” “suffered an unconstitutional
deprivation of his rights.” (Compl. at 2.) The
complaint alleges that Murmur was terminated from his
position as art teacher for, among other things,
“‘the way he does his art, ' for
‘appearance and behavior [,, , that] is vulgar, [...]
is conduct unbecoming of a teacher, and [...] has caused
disruption in the school.'” (Id.)
prayer for relief states that “Plaintiff, Stephen
Murmur” requests declaratory relief and equitable
relief regarding unconstitutional employment practices,
damages, attorneys fees and costs. (Id. at 3.)
PLAINTIFF MAY SUE ONLY ON HIS OWN BEHALF
complaint seeks relief for constitutional violations suffered
by Stephen Murmur. Plaintiff, however, is not Stephen Murmur.
person representing himself or herself in a case without an
attorney must appear pro se for such purpose. That
representation may not be delegated to any other person -
even a spouse, relative, or co-party in the case.”
Local Rule 83-2.2.1; see C.E. Pope Equity Trust v. United
States, 818 F.2d 696, 697 (9th Cir. 1987).
if Plaintiff decides to proceed with this case, he must
allege claims only on his own behalf and cannot allege claims
on behalf of Stephen Murmur or anyone else.
ALLEGATIONS THAT MAY PERTAIN TO PLAINTIFF
the complaint does not expressly state any claim on behalf of
Plaintiff, the only allegation in the complaint that may
refer to Plaintiff states:
Plaintiff brings this action resulting from damages
incurred due to unlawful seizure and detention from the
County of San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo Sheriff's
Department, Grover Beach Police Department and Mendocino
County Correctional Department on or about June 18th 2015 and
December 2016, respectively. (Id. at 2.) The caption
names the following as Defendants: San Luis Obispo
Correctional Department, Grover Beach Police Department,
Detective Reggio Bio, Detective Angelo Limon,  Deputy James
Elmore and Community Bail Bonds. (Id. at 1.)
Plaintiff seeks to claim false arrest and false imprisonment,
he must allege facts sufficient to show the absence of
probable cause to arrest him and detain him for trial.
See Wige v. City of Los Angeles, 713 F.3d 1183, 1185
(9th Cir. 2013). The complaint does not allege any facts
showing the absence of probable cause. The complaint does not
contain any facts indicating the charges on which he was
arrested or detained, the circumstances of his arrest or
detention, or what each named defendant did or did not do in
connection with the arrest or detention.
Court cautions Plaintiff that any false arrest or false
imprisonment claim may be barred, pursuant to Heck v.
Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), if he was convicted and
that conviction has not been overturned. See Lyall v.
City of Los Angeles, 807 F.3d 1178, 1190 (9th Cir. 2015)
(Heck bars claim of unreasonable seizure by police);
Cabrera v. City of Huntington Park, 159 F.3d 374,
380 (9th ...