Turner v. United States

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 Case No.: 25cv0174 DMS (DDL) KEITH TURNER, 11 Plaintiff, ORDER (1) GRANTING 12 v. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 13 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND (2) DISMISSING COMPLAINT 14 Defendant. WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR 15 FAILING TO STATE A CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF CAN BE 16 GRANTED PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) 17 18 Plaintiff, a non-prisoner proceeding pro se, has submitted a Complaint along with a 19 request to proceed In Forma Pauperis. 20 Motion to Proceed IFP 21 All parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in a district court of the 22 United States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of 23 $400. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed despite a plaintiff’s failure to 24 prepay the entire fee only if the plaintiff is granted leave to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 25 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). This Court 26 finds Plaintiff’s affidavit of assets is sufficient to show he is unable to pay the fees or post 27 securities required to maintain this action. See Civil Local Rule 3.2(d). Accordingly, the 28 Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 1 Sua Sponte Screening per 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) 2 Notwithstanding payment of any filing fee or portion thereof, a complaint filed by 3 any person proceeding IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) is subject to a mandatory and 4 sua sponte review and dismissal by the court to the extent it is frivolous, malicious, fails to 5 state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant 6 immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 7 (9th Cir. 2001) (“[T]he provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) are not limited to 8 prisoners.”); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). Prior to 9 its amendment by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, the former 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) 10 permitted sua sponte dismissal of only frivolous and malicious claims. Id. at 1130. The 11 newly enacted 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), however, mandates that the court reviewing a 12 complaint filed pursuant to the IFP provisions of section 1915 make and rule on its own 13 motion to dismiss before directing that the complaint be served by the U.S. Marshal 14 pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(2). Lopez, 203 F.3d 1127 (“[S]ection 1915(e) not only 15 permits, but requires a district court to dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint that fails to 16 state a claim.”); see also Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (noting 17 the “the language of § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) parallels the language of Federal Rule of Civil 18 Procedure 12(b)(6).”). 19 Here, Plaintiff filed a Complaint alleging claims for violations of his rights under the 20 First, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, Ninth, Thirteenth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United 21 States Constitution. Plaintiff sets out several pages of facts in his Complaint, but none of 22 those facts supports the claims alleged. For instance, Plaintiff alleges he is a victim of 23 human trafficking, and that the traffickers “have technology that allows them to interact 24 with [his] nervous system.” (Compl. at 4.) Plaintiff further alleges the traffickers “can 25 both send signals to [his] nerves and track the actions of at least parts of [his] nervous 26 system.” (Id.) He also alleges the traffickers keep him awake at night, control his sleeping 27 patterns, send signals to his nerves that cause pain, itching, and burning sensations, among 28 1 other things. (Ud. at 5.) Given the facts alleged, the Court finds Plaintiff's Complaint is 2 || frivolous and subject to dismissal under § 1915(e)(2)(B)Q). 3 || Conclusion and Order 4 For these reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed 5 || IFP is GRANTED and the Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice and without leave to 6 |lamend. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127, n.8 (9 Cir. 2000) (“When a case may 7 || be classified as frivolous or malicious, there is, by definition, no merit to the underlying 8 || action and so no reason to grant leave to amend.”) The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment 9 || accordingly and close this case. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 ||Dated: April 30, 2025 12 ore Yn . 3 Hon. Dana M. Sabraw United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28