Opinion
No. C-03-02483 WHA
August 11, 2003
ORDER DISMISSING CASE
Plaintiff filed a complaint in this court on July 31, 2003, and an application to proceed in forma pauperis. A court may authorize a plaintiff to prosecute an action in federal court without prepayment of fees or security if the plaintiff submits an affidavit showing that he or she is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Nevertheless, a court is under a continuing duty to dismiss a case whenever it determines that the action "(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii).
Plaintiff's complaint appears to be against the Social Security Commission for the United States and the State of California. Plaintiff cites the "Federal Civil Rights Act" and notes that a City of Fremont police officer removed property of plaintiffs, and plaintiff requests a mandatory injunction. Plaintiff attaches a one-page memorandum of points and authorities, a case management statement and complaints to the Superior Court of California, Southern Alameda County and the Alameda County Superior Court. These complaints, as well as plaintiff's memorandum, are incomprehensible and do not state any cognizable cause of action. Plaintiff's complaint does not contain a "short and plain statement of the claim" as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2). For this reason, the Court concludes that plaintiffs complaint fails to state a cognizable claim and must be dismissed. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126 (9th Cir. 2000) (section 1915 "requires a district court to dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint that fails to state a claim").
Furthermore, plaintiff appears to have used the federal court as a forum for his ranting about his dissatisfaction with public officials. He asks for the court to "prosecute defendants for obstruction of justice," claims that "this is the truth; and that is something politicians never want to face, truth" and says that all parties except for Governor Gray Davis have already been served. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d), the Court may dismiss a complaint whose factual allegations describe "fantastic or delusional scenarios." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989).
In another part of his papers, plaintiff appears to allege that he was unlawfully arrested, and then served seven months detention. Insofar as plaintiffs complaint can be read as a successive habeas petitioner to the two already dismissed by this Court, it also must be dismissed. See Rodgers v. Alameda County District Attorneys Office, C 01-21098 and Rodgers v. United States, C 02-4110.
For these reasons, the Court DISMISSES plaintiffs complaint. The Clerk shall Close the file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.