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.

Carroll v. Price

United States District Court, E.D. California

May 1, 2018

RONALD J. CARROLL, Plaintiff,
v.
BRANDON PRICE, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO FILE LODGED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT (ECF NO. 8) ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO RANDOMLY ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE TO ACTION FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS ACTION AS FRIVOLOUS FOURTEEN-DAY DEADLINE

          BARBARA A. MCAULIFFE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Plaintiff Ronald J. Carroll (“Plaintiff”) is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff initiated this action on October 2, 2017. (ECF No. 1.) Before the Court could screen Plaintiff's complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), Plaintiff lodged a first amended complaint on February 2, 2018. (ECF No. 8.)

         At this stage in the proceedings, Plaintiff may amend his complaint once as a matter of course. Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a). Therefore, the Clerk of the Court shall be directed to file his first amended complaint lodged on February 2, 2018. (ECF No. 8.) In the interest of judicial economy, the Court now turns to screening of the first amended complaint.

         I. Screening Requirement and Standard

         “Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that ... the action or appeal ... is frivolous or malicious; [or] . . . fails state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

         A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief . . . .” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). While a plaintiff's allegations are taken as true, courts “are not required to indulge unwarranted inferences.” Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

         To survive screening, Plaintiff's claims must be facially plausible, which requires sufficient factual detail to allow the Court to reasonably infer that each named defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quotation marks omitted); Moss v. U.S. Secret Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The sheer possibility that a defendant acted unlawfully is not sufficient, and mere consistency with liability falls short of satisfying the plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quotation marks omitted); Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.

         II. Plaintiff's Allegations

         In his first amended complaint, Plaintiff alleges as follows:

I have a comuper Chip Implanted and a wire battery pack in my back. Implanted in me in 1976 in Bainbridge, Ga. After an auto accident Mary Macodonie put an ether mask on my nose and mouth. Placing me unconsious for 13 hours. Scars are stillon back to prove operation. Back was never injuied. Control Center Annonouncer Poisons my mind and body. And uses Electricity to torture me. And uses me to control the weather and mind control all over the world. . Everything is hook up to my spinenal collum and brain, Charges against me were falsified. By said Person . . . Judg, Felex, Bakersfield court ordered A ultrasound in 2006. Never was Done.

(ECF No. 8 at 3) (unedited text).

         As relief, Plaintiff seeks an order for an ultrasound viewed by witnesses and removal of the device (and wire and battery pack) on film. Id.

         III. Discussion

         A pleading is “factual[ly] frivolous[ ]” 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.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 25-26 (1992). Section 1915 gives courts “the unusual power to pierce the veil” of a complaint such as that filed by the plaintiff and to “dismiss those claims whose factual contentions are clearly baseless.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989). Clearly baseless factual allegations include those ...


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.