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.

Kyle v. Los Angeles Police Department

United States District Court, E.D. California

September 9, 2019

DONTA LADEAL KYLE, Plaintiff,
v.
LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al., Defendants.

          FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

          ALLISON CLAIRE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.

         I. Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

         Plaintiff has submitted an application to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. “A district court may deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis at the outset if it appears from the face of the proposed complaint that the action is frivolous or without merit.” Tripati v. First Nat'l Bank & Tr., 821 F.2d 1368, 1370 (9th Cir. 1987) (citations omitted). As addressed below, the undersigned finds that the complaint is frivolous, and it will therefore be recommended that plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis be denied.

         II. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints

         The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are “frivolous, malicious, or fail[] to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, ” or that “seek[] monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).

         A claim “is [legally] frivolous where 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). “[A] judge may dismiss . . . claims which are ‘based on indisputably meritless legal theories' or whose ‘factual contentions are clearly baseless.'” Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1989) (quoting Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000). The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227-28 (citations omitted).

         III. Complaint

         Plaintiff alleges that the Los Angeles Police Department, City of Los Angeles, various detectives and parole officers, paid informants, his ex-wife, Harris Corporation, and several other individuals have violated his rights. ECF No. 1 at 2-8. Specifically, he alleges that the defendants are using Stingray technology to spy on his calls with his attorney and to spoof his identity by reading his thoughts and collecting his memories. Id. at 3, 5. He also claims that defendants are using the technology to put thoughts in his head and dreams and are attempting to get him to kill someone in order to keep him in prison. Id. at 4-5.

         The allegations in plaintiff's complaint are delusional and do not present facts or legally coherent theories of liability establishing a claim for relief. These claims should therefore be dismissed. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992) (“[A] court may dismiss a claim as factually frivolous only if the facts alleged are ‘clearly baseless,' a category encompassing allegations that are ‘fanciful,' ‘fantastic,' and ‘delusional.'” (internal citations omitted)).

         IV. No Leave to Amend

         If the court finds that a complaint or claim should be dismissed for failure to state a claim, the court has discretion to dismiss with or without leave to amend. Leave to amend should be granted if it appears possible that the defects in the complaint could be corrected, especially if a plaintiff is pro se. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc); Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995) (“A pro se litigant must be given leave to amend his or her complaint, and some notice of its deficiencies, unless it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by amendment.” (citing Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987))). However, if, after careful consideration, it is clear that a claim cannot be cured by amendment, the Court may dismiss without leave to amend. Cato, 70 F.3d at 1105-06.

         The undersigned finds that, as set forth above, plaintiff's complaint is frivolous. Moreover, given the nature of plaintiff's claims, there is no way for plaintiff to amend the complaint to state a claim for which relief can be granted. Leave to amend would thus be futile. “A district court may deny leave to amend when amendment would be futile.” Hartmann v. CDCR, 707 F.3d 1114, 1130 (9th Cir. 2013).

         V. Plain Language Summary of this Order for ...


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.