United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO PROCEED IN
FORMA PAUPERIS AND DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO
JENNIFER L. THURSTON, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Wiley asserts Robert Goodman, the Bakersfield Police
Department, and the Kern County Superior Court are liable for
violations of his civil rights to equal protection and due
process, “crimes against the disabled, ” judicial
corruption, and judicial misconduct. However, Plaintiff fails
to allege facts to support his claims for violations of his
civil rights, and it appears the remainder are barred under
the doctrines of judicial immunity and
Rooker-Feldman. Accordingly, Plaintiff's
complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend.
Motion to proceed in forma pauperis
Court may authorize the commencement of an action without
prepayment of fees when an individual “submits an
affidavit that includes a statement of all assets such person
. . . possesses [and] that the person is unable to pay such
fees or give security therefor.” 28 U.S.C. §
1915(a). The Court has reviewed Plaintiff's application
and finds he satisfies the requirements of 28 U.S.C. §
1915(a). Therefore, Plaintiff's motion to proceed in
forma pauperis is GRANTED.
individual seeks to proceed in forma pauperis, the
Court is required to review the complaint and shall dismiss a
complaint, or portion of the complaint, if it is
“frivolous, malicious or 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. § 1915A(b); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
plaintiff's claim is 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, 32-33 (1992). In other words, a
complaint is frivolous where the litigant sets “not
only the inarguable legal conclusion, but also the fanciful
factual allegation.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490
U.S. 319, 325 (1989).
rules for pleading complaints are governed by the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. A pleading must include a statement
affirming the court's jurisdiction, “a short and
plain statement of the claim showing the pleader is entitled
to relief; and . . . a demand for the relief sought, which
may include relief in the alternative or different types of
relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a).
complaint must give fair notice and state the elements of the
plaintiff's claim in a plain and succinct manner.
Jones v. Cmty. Redevelopment Agency, 733 F.2d 646,
649 (9th Cir. 1984). The purpose of the complaint is to
inform the defendant of the grounds upon which the complaint
stands. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506,
512 (2002). The Supreme Court noted,
Rule 8 does not require detailed factual allegations, but it
demands more than an unadorned,
the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation. A pleading
that offers labels and conclusions or a formulaic recitation
of the elements of a cause of action will not do. Nor does a
complaint suffice if it tenders naked assertions devoid of
further factual enhancement.
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009)
(internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Vague and
conclusory allegations do not support a cause of action.
Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th
Cir. 1982). The Court clarified further,
[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, to “state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.” [Citation]. 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. [Citation].
The plausibility standard is not akin to a “probability
requirement, ” but it asks for more than a sheer
possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.
[Citation]. Where a complaint pleads facts that are
“merely consistent with” a defendant's
liability, it “stops short of the line between
possibility and plausibility of ‘entitlement to
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679 (citations omitted). When
factual allegations are well-pled, a court should assume
their truth and determine whether the facts would make the
plaintiff entitled to relief; legal conclusions are not
entitled to the same assumption of truth. Id. The
Court may grant leave to amend a complaint to the extent
deficiencies of the complaint can be cured by an amendment.
Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-28 (9th Cir.
2000) (en banc).
alleges that in 2013, he “was arrested and held to
answer [for] something already litigated.” (Doc. 1 at
8) He asserts he is arrested “[e]very 4 years, ”
for a total of three times in twelve years, and he was
unlawfully detained “3 times for the same
charge.” (Id. at 8, 9) According to Plaintiff,
the “courts failed due process” and a judge in
the family law division “harmed Plaintiff” using
domestic violence orders. (Id. at 8) He contends the
court is corrupt and made him homeless “as a result of
the court moving forward on documents in violation of [the]
1974 Privacy Act.” (Id.) Plaintiff alleges a
$100, 000 lien was placed on his home, which result in a loss
of business. (Id. at 9) Finally, Plaintiff contends
that at an unidentified time, he was the “victim of [a]
violent hate crime, ” which resulted in bodily injury.
Discussion and Analysis
upon the foregoing facts, Plaintiff contends the defendants
are liable for violations of “equal protection under
the law, crimes against the disabled, failure of due process,
judicial corruption, [and] judicial misconduct.” (Doc.
1 at 4)