Opinion
CASE NO. 1:18-CV-0079 AWI MJS
01-23-2018
JUNIOR TEJEDA, Plaintiff v. DONALD TRUMP, et al., Defendants
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS , DISMISSING CASE AS FRIVOLOUS, AND CLOSING MATTER (Doc. Nos. 1, 2)
On January 18, 2018, Plaintiff Junior Tejeda filed this matter that purports to be a civil rights lawsuit. Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and is a prisoner at the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility in Corcoran, California. Plaintiff names as President Donald Trump, Vice President Mike Pence, CIA Director Mike Pompeo, Secretary of Defense James Mattis, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Joseph Dunford, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, and FBI Director Christopher Wray. Currently before the Court is Plaintiff's motion to proceed with this case in forma pauperis.
Complaint's Allegations
The Complaint is not a model of clarity. However, the gist of the Complaint is that Plaintiff is an unwilling and unconsenting test subject of the wireless mind control human experimentation that is either being conducted, developed, or continued by Defendants. Because of the effects the wireless mind control experimentation on him, Plaintiff seeks $100 billion from the Defendants.
In Forma Pauperis Framework
District courts "may authorize the commencement . . . of any suit, action or proceeding, civil or criminal . . . without prepayment of fees or security therefor, by a person who submits an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets such [person] possess that the person is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). A district court "shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action . . . is frivolous or malicious . . . ." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). An action is "frivolous" if it has no arguable basis in fact or law; the term embraces both inarguable legal conclusions and fanciful factual allegations. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); DeRock v. Sprint-Nextel, 584 Fed. Appx. 737 (9th Cir. 2014); see also Tripati v. First Nat'l Bank & Trust, 821 F.2d 1368, 1370 (9th Cir. 1987). "A district court may deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis at the outset if it appears from the face of the proposed complaint that the action is frivolous or without merit." Minetti v. Port of Seattle, 152 F.3d 1113, 1115 (9th Cir. 1998); Tripati, 821 F.2d at 1370. However, the "denial of leave to proceed in forma pauperis is an abuse of discretion unless the district court first provides a plaintiff leave to amend the complaint or finds that amendment would be futile." Rodriguez v. Steck, 795 F.3d 1187, 1188 (9th Cir. 2015); see Tripati, 821 F.2d at 1370. If a court denies a motion to proceed in forma pauperis because the complaint is frivolous and cannot be cured by amendment, then the denial of the motion acts as a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). Rodriguez, 795 F.3d at 1188.
Discussion
Plaintiff's claims are frivolous. The idea that top federal executives officers, including the President of the United States, has engaged or is engaging in using Plaintiff as a human guinea pig for wireless mind control experiments is fanciful an delusional. The Court need not accept as true such allegations. See Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 325; DeRock, 584 Fed. Appx. at 737. Because amendment would be futile and Plaintiff cannot possibly win relief, the Court will dismiss this case as frivolous and for failure to state a claim. See Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 325; DeRock, 584 Fed. Appx. at 737; Rodriguez, 795 F.3d at 1188; Minetti, 152 F.3d at 1115; Tripati.
ORDER
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that; 1. Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. Nos. 2) is DENIED; 2. This case is DISMISSED as frivolous and for failure to state a claim; and 3. The Clerk shall CLOSE this case. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: January 23, 2018
/s/_________
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE