Holmes v. Gross
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — [The] 27 term ‘frivolou
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Janis L. Sammartino (author)
Analysis
A pro se state prisoner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 without paying the filing fee or requesting in forma pauperis status, and the court found the pleading incomprehensible. The court dismissed the action with prejudice as frivolous.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Dismissal of the action for failure to pay the filing fee or submit a request to proceed in forma pauperis.“Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this action. See Rule 3(a), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254; 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); id. § 1915.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the statutory requirement that a prisoner must pay the filing fee or be granted in forma pauperis status to proceed. The order recites that the petitioner failed to do either, which is a sufficient basis for dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). |
Dismissal of the petition without leave to amend as frivolous.“Based on the incomprehensible nature of Plaintiff's pleading, the Court finds that claims “rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible,” Denton, 504 U.S. at 33, and as such, his Petition must b DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND as frivolous.” | agree with court The court applied the standard from Denton v. Hernandez and Neitzke v. Williams to determine that the pleading was factually frivolous. The court cited Lopez v. Smith to support the denial of leave to amend, noting that a frivolous claim has no merit by definition. The reasoning follows from the cited authorities and the recited facts that the pleading was 'incomprehensible.' |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the procedural defect (failure to pay fee/IFP) and the substantive defect (frivolousness). It cites the appropriate Supreme Court precedents for the definition of frivolousness and the Ninth Circuit precedent for the consequence of a frivolous finding (no leave to amend). The reasoning is direct and supported by the cited authorities.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
inconsistent with cited authorityOpinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOE RUBEN HOLMES, JR., Case No.: 24-CV-492 JLS (BLM)
12 Petitioner, ORDER DISMISSING ACTION 13 v. WITH PREJUDICE AS FRIVOLOUS 14 JASON T. GROSS, (ECF No. 1) 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas 18 Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, but has failed to pay the $5.00 filing fee or submit a 19 request to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 1. Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES 20 this action. See Rule 3(a), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254; 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); id. § 1915. 21 In addition, the Petition is incomprehensible. See ECF No. 1 at 2–7. A pleading is 22 “factually frivolous” if “the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly 23 incredible, whether or not there are judicially noticeable facts available to contradict them.” 24 Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32–33 (1992); see also Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 25 319, 325 (1989) (“[A] complaint, containing as it does both factual allegations and legal 26 conclusions, is frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. . . . [The] 27 term ‘frivolous,’ when applied to a complaint, embraces not only the inarguable legal 28 conclusion, but also the fanciful factual allegation.”); Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S. 644, 649 1 (2005) (noting that “Rule 8... requires only ‘a short and plain statement,’” while “Rule 2 ||2(c) of the Rules Governing Habeas Corpus Cases requires a more detailed statement.” 3 || (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)); Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 76 (1977) (explaining 4 ||that vague, conclusory, or palpably incredible allegations unsupported by specific facts 5 ||may be subject to summary dismissal). 6 Based on the incomprehensible nature of Plaintiff's pleading, the Court finds that 7 claims “rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible,” Denton, 504 U.S. at 8 ||33, and as such, his Petition must b DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND as 9 ||frivolous. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 n.8 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (noting 10 || that if a claim is classified as frivolous, “there is by definition no merit to the underlying 11 |} action and so no reason to grant leave to amend.”). 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 ||Dated: March 15, 2024 jae L. Lo memeaite- 14 on. Janis L. Sammartino 15 United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28