From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Heizelman v. Otter

United States District Court, S.D. California
Oct 21, 2010
CASE NO. 09CV2128-LAB (NLS) (S.D. Cal. Oct. 21, 2010)

Opinion

CASE NO. 09CV2128-LAB (NLS).

October 21, 2010


ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND DISMISSING CASE


Robert Heizelman filed this action against Idaho Governor Butch Otter, Idaho Senator Mike Crapo, and the ACLU on September 29, 2010. Now pending is Mr. Heizelman's Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis ("IFP").

I. IFP Motion

II. Initial Screening

See28 U.S.C. § 191428 U.S.C. 1915In Forma Pauperis GRANTED. 28 U.S.C. § 191528 U.S.C. § 1915 28 U.S.C. § 1915Calhoun v. Stahl254 F.3d 8454528 U.S.C. § 1915Lopez v. Smith203 F.3d 1122 1126-27 28 U.S.C. § 1915

A complaint must plead facts that "raise a right to relief above the speculative level on the assumption that all of the complaint's allegations are true." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). "[S]ome threshold of plausibility must be crossed at the outset" before a case can go forward. Id. at 558 (internal quotations omitted). A claim has "facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, ___ U.S. ___, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). "The plausibility standard is not akin to a `probability requirement,' but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully." Id.

While a court must draw all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor, it need not "necessarily assume the truth of legal conclusions merely because they are cast in the form of factual allegations." Warren v. Fox Family Worldwide, Inc., 328 F.3d 1136, 1139 (9th Cir. 2003) (internal quotations omitted). In fact, no legal conclusions need to be accepted as true. Ashcroft, 129 S.Ct. at 1949. A complaint doesn't suffice "if it tenders `naked assertion[s]' devoid of `further factual enhancement.'" Id. That includes a mere formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action; this will not do either. Bell Atlantic Corp., 550 U.S. at 555.

With the above standards in mind, Mr. Heizelman's complaint is patently inadequate as pled, even though the Court has a duty to liberally construe a pro se litigant's pleadings, see Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Dep't, 839 F.2d 621, 623 (9th Cir. 1988). It reads as a running, stream-of-consciousness commentary of grievances against various parties, with no unifying theme or discernable legal claims. Though legible, it is incoherent and unintelligible on the whole. Mr. Heizelman appears to take issue with prison conditions he allegedly endured, property theft he allegedly suffered, and various conspiracies of which he believes he is a victim, but he fails to plead concrete, intelligible facts that add structure and content to these grievances.

Mr. Heizelman's complaint is therefore DISMISSED. The Court finds it is frivolous and fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The Court also finds that amendment would be futile, so this dismissal is WITH PREJUDICE, and WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 20, 2010


Summaries of

Heizelman v. Otter

United States District Court, S.D. California
Oct 21, 2010
CASE NO. 09CV2128-LAB (NLS) (S.D. Cal. Oct. 21, 2010)
Case details for

Heizelman v. Otter

Case Details

Full title:ROBERT HEIZELMAN, Plaintiff, v. GOVERNOR BUTCH OTTER, et al., Defendants

Court:United States District Court, S.D. California

Date published: Oct 21, 2010

Citations

CASE NO. 09CV2128-LAB (NLS) (S.D. Cal. Oct. 21, 2010)