Opinion
23-cv-03826-KAW
10-17-2023
ELIAS TORRES RAMIREZ, Plaintiff, v. TAYLOR ALISON SWIFT, Defendant.
ORDER REASSIGNING CASE; REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS CASE FOR FAILURE TO FILE AMENDED IN FORMA PAUPERIS APPLICATION OR PAY THE FILING FEE
KANDIS A. WESTMORE, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
On July 31, 2023, Plaintiff Elias Torres Ramirez filed the instant case against Defendant Taylor Swift, alleging that: (1) the Napa Court has ruled against “a holy person” to put levies on his accounts followed by false charges, (2) people in the “tiny homes in Santa Rosa” are making false claims against him, (3) “Robert” has violated copyright laws based on Plaintiff's missing work, (4) the Santa Clara Police Department and other unknown individuals are keeping him apart from Ms. Swift, and (5) he is entitled to the reward money for the Osama Bin Laden case. (Compl. at 3-7, Dkt. No. 1.) Plaintiff also filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP application”), in which Plaintiff claimed he was married to Ms. Swift. (IFP Application at 2, Dkt. No. 3.)
On August 9, 2023, the Court denied Plaintiff's IFP application for failure to fully answer question 7, namely his present bank account balance, cash amount, and other assets. (Dkt. No. 6 at 1.) The Court gave Plaintiff until August 30, 2023 to file an amended and complete IFP application or pay the filing fee. (Id.)
To date, Plaintiff has not filed an amended IFP application. Rather, on August 14, 2023, Plaintiff filed a letter stating that he had an account but that “[r]egarding further information, I currently do not have the information.” (Dkt. No. 9.) Plaintiff has also filed thirteen letters, none of which appears to be an amended IFP application. (See Dkt. Nos. 7-8, 10-11, 13-19, 21-22.)
Accordingly, the Court REASSIGNS the case to a district judge, and RECOMMENDS that the case be dismissed for failure to provide a complete IFP application or pay the filing fee. The Court also notes that even if the Court was to accept Plaintiff's assertions that he does not know his present bank account balance, cash amount, or assets, the Court would recommend that Plaintiff's complaint dismissed with prejudice because the factual allegations are plainly frivolous. Courts have “the unusual power to pierce the veil of the complaint's factual allegations and dismiss those claims whose factual contentions are clearly baseless.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989). Clearly baseless claims, in turn, are those “that are fanciful, fantastic, and delusional.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992) (internal quotation omitted). “A finding of factual frivolousness is appropriate 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.” Id. at 33. Again, Plaintiff alleges that he is married to Ms. Swift, that various non-defendants (including the Napa Court and unknown individuals living in tiny homes in Santa Rosa) are making false charges against him, and that he is entitled to the Osama Bin Laden reward money. Thus, Plaintiff's complaint plainly fails to satisfy Section 1915.
Any party may file objections to this report and recommendation with the district judge within 14 days of being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b); N.D. Civil L.R. 72-3. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the district court's order. IBEW Local 595 Trust Funds v. ACS Controls Corp., No. C-10-5568, 2011 WL 1496056, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 20, 2011).
IT IS SO ORDERED.