Opinion
Case No. C08-440-JLR-JPD.
March 31, 2008
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Paul Simonds, appearing pro se, recently filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) and a proposed civil rights complaint. Dkt. No. 1-1. Among other problems, the complaint is unintelligible, contains inappropriate statements, and fails to clarify all of the specific defendants named.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), this Court may deny an application to proceed IFP and should dismiss a complaint if it is frivolous or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(ii); O'Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 616 (9th Cir. 1990). An action is frivolous if "it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989).
Here, plaintiff fails to allege sufficient facts to place the defendants on notice of the nature of his claims or otherwise provide any basis for jurisdiction in this Court. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a). Because this action appears frivolous and fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, it is subject to dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
Plaintiff has submitted a large number of similar proposed complaints to this Court. The Court once again advises plaintiff of his responsibility to research the facts and law before filing a complaint in order to determine whether his claim for relief is frivolous. If plaintiff files a frivolous action, he may be sanctioned. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 11. The Court would likely impose a sanction of dismissal on any frivolous complaint. If plaintiff files numerous frivolous or malicious complaints, the Court may bar him from proceeding in this court. See DeLong v. Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144, 1146-48 (9th Cir. 1990) (discussing bar order requirements).
Plaintiff is a prolific litigator who has filed several similar lawsuits in the past against various judges, attorneys, and other officers in this district. See, e.g., Simonds v. Fox, C08-346-RAJ (W.D. Wash. 2008); Simonds v. SSI, C08-220-JLR (W.D. Wash. 2008); Simonds v. Sweepstakes, C08-126-TSZ (W.D. Wash 2008); Simonds v. Fox, C08-46-JCC (W.D. Wash. 2008); Simonds v. Ninth Circuit, C07-1353-MJP (W.D. Wash. 2007); Simonds v. Fox, C07-1250-MJB (W.D. Wash. 2007); Simonds v. Social Sec. Admin., C07-741-MJP (W.D. Wash. 2007); Simonds v. Canby (II), C07-536-MJP (W.D. Wash. 2007); Simonds v. Martinez, C07-523-TSZ (W.D. Wash. 2007); Simonds v. Donohue, C06-1588-JLR (W.D. Wash. 2006); Simonds v. Zilly, C06-1385-RSL (W.D. Wash. 2006); Simonds v. Fox (II), C06-1384-RSM (W.D. Wash. 2006); Simonds v. Fox (I), C04-2473-JCC (W.D. Wash. 2005); Simonds v. Canby (I), C05-1887-JCC (W.D. Wash. 2005).
Because of the deficiencies in plaintiff's proposed complaint, his request to proceed IFP should be DENIED and this case DISMISSED without prejudice. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). A proposed order of dismissal accompanies this Report and Recommendation.