Opinion
Case No. 2:16-cv-02870-JAD-CWH
04-04-2017
BARBARA RUTH CRAM, Plaintiff, v. US INTERIOR, Defendant.
REPORT & RECOMMENDATION
Presently before the court is pro se Plaintiff Barbara Ruth Cram's Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 1), filed on December 9, 2016.
Also before the court is Plaintiff's Motion to Correct Complaint (ECF No. 3), filed on January 5, 2017.
Also before the court is Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Counsel (ECF No. 4), filed on February 13, 2017.
Also before the court is Plaintiff's Motion for Additional Support (ECF No. 5), filed on March 29, 2017.
Also before the court is Plaintiff's Motion for Additional Support (ECF No. 6), filed on March 29, 2017.
Plaintiff has submitted the declaration required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) showing an inability to prepay fees and costs or give security for them. Accordingly, Plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted.
Upon granting a request to proceed in forma pauperis, a court must screen the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). In screening the complaint, a court must identify cognizable claims and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, file to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). A complaint is frivolous if it contains "claims whose factual contentions are clearly baseless," such as "claims describing fantastic or delusional scenarios." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327-28 (1989).
Dismissal for failure to state a claim under § 1915(e)(2) incorporates the standard for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012). To survive § 1915 review, a complaint must "contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). The court liberally construes pro se complaints and may only dismiss them "if it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief." Nordstrom v. Ryan, 762 F.3d 903, 908 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678).
Here, Plaintiff's complaint alleges that her newborn baby was murdered. (Compl. (ECF No. 1-2 at 1).) Plaintiff alleges that her baby was beheaded and stomped by "subject one," that she was raped by "subject two," and that she was gutted by "subject three." (Id. at 1-3.) Plaintiff further alleges that "subject four" and "subject five" participated in these events. According to Plaintiff, two of these individuals, subjects three and four, are "are ventriloquists and sound like each other and have white hair." (Id. at 3-4.) Plaintiff alleges that she was stabbed and beheaded and that she "died gutted and was raised," which the court understands to be an allegation that she was resurrected. (Id. at 4-5.) Plaintiff contends that these individuals work in corrections and that they are members of a roving gang. (Id. at 5-11.) In explaining the delay in bringing her claim, she states "I was raped at my home 1200 times and kidnapped daily during the time I was bringing this case. I have sleep disorder and bipolar disorder that interfered. I was shot over 100 times in the head while trying to bring this case." (Id. at 15.) Plaintiff requests $5,000,000 in damages related to these events. (Id. at 18-19.)
Even liberally construing Plaintiff's complaint, the court finds that Plaintiff's factual allegations describe fantastic and delusional scenarios and do not state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Given that Plaintiff's complaint does not set forth a plausible claim, it is recommended that the complaint be dismissed with prejudice because amendment would be futile. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126 (9th Cir. 2000) (stating that a district court is not required to provide leave to amend a complaint if the complaint could not possibly be cured by the allegation of other facts).
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff Barbara Ruth Cram's Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 1) is GRANTED.
IT IS RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff Barbara Ruth Cram's Complaint (ECF No. 1-2) be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as delusional and frivolous.
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that all pending motions (ECF Nos. 3, 4, 5, and 6) in the case be DENIED as moot.
NOTICE
This report and recommendation is submitted to the United States district judge assigned to this case under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). A party who objects to this report and recommendation may file a written objection supported by points and authorities within fourteen days of being served with this report and recommendation. Local Rule IB 3-2(a). Failure to file a timely objection may waive the right to appeal the District Court's Order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991).
DATED: April 4, 2017
/s/ _________
C.W. Hoffman, Jr.
United States Magistrate Judge