United States District Court, E.D. California
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; ORDER
GREGORY G. HOLLOWS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Brad Rossman [“plaintiff”] is proceeding in this
civil rights act pro se. His complaint, filed on October 26,
2017, ECF No. 1, was accompanied by a motion to proceed in
forma pauperis. ECF No. 2. The court as examined the in forma
pauperis application and has determined that plaintiff lacks
the resources to pay the fees and costs associated with this
action and will therefore grant this Motion.
IFP status does not end the court's inquiry, however. The
federal IFP statute requires federal courts to dismiss a case
if the action is legally “frivolous or malicious,
” fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is
immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2.
is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either
in law or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S.
319, 325 (1989). In reviewing a complaint under this
standard, the court will (1) accept as true all of the
factual allegations contained in the complaint, unless they
are clearly baseless or fanciful, (2) construe those
allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and
(3) resolve all doubts in the plaintiff's favor. See
Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327; Erickson v. Pardus,
551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007); Von Saher v. Norton Simon Museum
of Art at Pasadena, 592 F.3d 954, 960 (9th Cir. 2010),
cert. denied, 564 U.S. 1037 (2011); Hebbe v.
Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 340 (9th Cir. 2010).
the court need not accept as true, legal conclusions cast in
the form of factual allegations, or allegations that
contradict matters properly subject to judicial notice.
See Western Mining Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d 618,
624 (9th Cir. 1981); Sprewell v. Golden State
Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir.), as amended, 275
F.3d 1187 (2001).
pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than those
drafted by lawyersHaines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519,
520 (1972). Pro se complaints are construed liberally and may
only be dismissed if it appears beyond doubt that the
plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim
which would entitle him to relief. Nordstrom v.
Ryan, 762 F.3d 903, 908 (9th Cir. 2014). A pro se
litigant is entitled to notice of the deficiencies in the
complaint and an opportunity to amend, unless the
complaint's deficiencies could not be cured by amendment.
See Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir.
complaint is a 36 page rant in which he claims to have been
tortured, prevented from leaving the country, had attempts
made on his life, and had millions, if not billions, of
dollars and other assets stolen by a panoply of government
officials and employees and several private defendants. There
is, however, no specific information as to who stole what,
when, or how and who specifically tried to kill him, or
participated in preventing him from leave the country.
Because of this dearth of information the court must dismiss
this complaint as frivolous and in violation of the dictates
of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) which calls for
“a short and plain statement of the claim showing the
pleader is entitled to relief.” This complaint is
completely wanting of these elements.
important to this court's resolution, however, is the
manner in which the Complaint is written. Every person named
in this complaint is affixed with a description of his or her
race, religion, etc., expressed in the crudest possible way.
Women are referred to variously as “c-ts, ”
“f-king African Americans, ” “subhuman My
N99g7s,  and “sh-tbag Evil.” ECF No. 1.
At ¶ 44. Men are referred to as “certifiab[y]
evil, ” Appratchik morons, id., “violent
faggot N6g9er, ” “subhuman piece of s-t, mongrel,
” ¶ 45, “violent faggots as homosexuals,
” ¶27, “de facto Zionist, bigoted,
anti-German, JEW, ¶ 28. In the caption to the complaint
plaintiff identifies groups of defendants who sued as
“Jews more generally, ” African Americans more
generally, “violent if not murderous closet faggots,
wacko homosexuals, ” and many other slurs. Id.
at pp. 2-4.
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) allows the court to strike from
scandalous matter from a pleading either pursuant to a
motion, 12(f)(2), or on its own. See Dawe v. Corrections,
USA, 2009 WL 2591146 (E.D. Cal. 2009). “A pleading
is scandalous if it “improperly casts a derogatory
light on someone, most typically on a party to the action.
Tucker v. Guardian Protection Services, Inc., 2017
WL 1047122 *2 (S.D.Cal. 2017) citing Cortina v.Goya
Foods, Inc., 94 F.Supp.3d 1174, 1182 (S.D.Cal. 2015).
Another formulation defines “scandalous
allegations” as those “'that cast a cruelly
derogatory light on a party or other person.”
Shinde v. Nithyananda Foundation, 2013 WL 1953707 *
2 (C.D.Cal. 2013), quoting In re 2TheMart.com, Inc. Sec.
Litig., 114 F.Supp.2d 955, 965 (C.D.Cal. 2000).
Allegations identified as scandalous may be stricken whether
they are unrelated to the controversy or unduly prejudicial.
Id. at *8. When the allegations at issue are both
scandalous under FRCP 12(f) and insufficient under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) the court may find that they
are being made in bad faith and or for an improper purpose.
court finds that there is no basis upon which to maintain
this complaint and that there is no purpose in allowing
amendment as it can find no basis upon which plaintiff would
be able to state cognizable ...