United States District Court, E.D. California
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
DEBORAH BARNES, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Rickey Alford is proceeding in this action pro se. This
matter was referred to the undersigned in accordance with
Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Pending
before the court are plaintiff's complaint and motion to
proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
(ECF Nos. 1 & 2.) Therein, plaintiff complains about
“female white supremacist Neo-Nazi-Ku Kluk
Klans.” (Compl. (ECF No. 1) at 1-2.)
court is required to screen complaints brought by parties
proceeding in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2); see also Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122,
1129 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). Here, plaintiff's
complaint is deficient. Accordingly, for the reasons stated
below, the undersigned will recommend that plaintiff's
complaint be dismissed without leave to amend.
Plaintiff's Application to Proceed In Forma
in forma pauperis application fails to contain any financial
information. (ECF No. 2.) Moreover, a determination that a
plaintiff qualifies financially for in forma pauperis status
does not complete the inquiry required by the statute.
“‘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.'” Minetti v. Port of
Seattle, 152 F.3d 1113, 1115 (9th Cir. 1998) (quoting
Tripati v. First Nat. Bank & Trust, 821 F.2d
1368, 1370 (9th Cir. 1987)); see also McGee v. Department
of Child Support Services, 584 Fed.Appx. 638 (9th Cir.
2014) (“the district court did not abuse its discretion
by denying McGee's request to proceed IFP because it
appears from the face of the amended complaint that
McGee's action is frivolous or without merit”);
Smart v. Heinze, 347 F.2d 114, 116 (9th Cir. 1965)
(“It is the duty of the District Court to examine any
application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis to
determine whether the proposed proceeding has merit and if it
appears that the proceeding is without merit, the court is
bound to deny a motion seeking leave to proceed in forma
the court must dismiss an in forma pauperis case at any time
if the allegation of poverty is found to be untrue or if it
is determined that the action is frivolous or malicious,
fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or
seeks monetary relief against an immune defendant.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). A complaint is
legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis 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). Under this standard, a court must dismiss a
complaint as frivolous where it is based on an indisputably
meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are
clearly baseless. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327; 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e).
state a claim on which relief may be granted, the plaintiff
must allege “enough facts to state a claim to relief
that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp.
v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). In considering
whether a complaint states a cognizable claim, the court
accepts as true the material allegations in the complaint and
construes the allegations in the light most favorable to the
plaintiff. Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S.
69, 73 (1984); Hosp. Bldg. Co. v. Trustees of Rex
Hosp., 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976); Love v. United
States, 915 F.2d 1242, 1245 (9th Cir. 1989). Pro se
pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than those
drafted by lawyers. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519,
520 (1972). However, the court need not accept as true
conclusory allegations, unreasonable inferences, or
unwarranted deductions of fact. Western Mining Council v.
Watt, 643 F.2d 618, 624 (9th Cir. 1981).
minimum requirements for a civil complaint in federal court
are as follows:
A pleading which sets forth a claim for relief . . . shall
contain (1) a short and plain statement of the grounds upon
which the court's jurisdiction depends . . ., (2) a short
and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is
entitled to relief, and (3) a demand for judgment for the
relief the pleader seeks.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a).
in forma pauperis statute . . . ‘accords judges not
only the authority to dismiss a claim based on an
indisputably meritless legal theory, but also the unusual
power to pierce the veil of the complaint's factual
allegations and dismiss those claims whose factual
contentions are clearly baseless.'” Denton v.
Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32 (1992) (quoting
Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327). “Examples of the
latter class are claims describing fantastic or delusional
scenarios, claims with which federal district judges are all
too familiar.” Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 328.
the complaint complains about “female white supremacist
Neo-Nazi-Ku Kluk Klans.” (Compl. (ECF No. 1) at 1-2.)
The complaint also alleges that the Chief Justice of the
California Supreme Court has “demonstrated a (sic)
enemy for life to all Crips, Bloods, Black family,
etc.” (Id.) According to the complaint,
“Crips, Bloods do not fall under the Fourth
Amendment[.]” (Id.) The complaint also alleges
that two “House Nigger, Neo-Naz (sic), Ku Klux Klan . .
. . anti-blacks . . . declared a war on all Crips and
Bloods[.]'” (Id. at 3.)
regard, not only does the complaint fail to state a claim,
but the complaint's allegations are also delusional and
frivolous. See Denton, 504 U.S. at 33 (“a
finding of factual frivolousness is appropriate when the
facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the
wholly incredible, ...