Opinion
No. CIV.S-06-1617 LKK DAD PS.
August 3, 2006
ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Plaintiff, proceeding in this action pro se, has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 72-302(c)(21), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Plaintiff has submitted an affidavit making the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted.
Plaintiff's handwritten complaint and his subsequently filed amended complaint are unintelligible. Plaintiff's difficult to decipher handwriting, which is accompanied by various lines, arrows, boxes, numbers, unusual punctuation and profanity, is densely scrawled across a series of pages. It is impossible to determine the precise nature of this action, which apparently is directed at the United States of America, President George W. Bush, former President William J. Clinton, and perhaps others. No basis for federal jurisdiction is alleged. Indeed, the undersigned finds that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action. See Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 682 (recognizing that a claim is subject to dismissal for want of jurisdiction where it is "wholly insubstantial and frivolous" and "so patently without merit"); Hagans v. Levine, 415 U.S. 528, 543 (stating that a claim may be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction where it is "so insubstantial, implausible, foreclosed by prior decisions of this Court or otherwise completely devoid of merit as not to involve a federal controversy within the jurisdiction of the District Court").See also Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227 (9th Cir. 1984) ("A paid complaint that is `obviously frivolous' does not confer federal subject matter jurisdiction and may be dismissed sua sponte before service of process.") (citations omitted). Accordingly, the undersigned will recommend that this action be dismissed with prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Plaintiff also has filed a flurry of motions since initiating this action on July 21, 2006. Those motions are as confusing and indecipherable as plaintiff's complaint and amended complaint, and together with those pleadings, demonstrate that granting leave to amend his complaint would be futile.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis in the above-listed action is granted. All other pending requests and motions are denied.
IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this matter be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3).
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within ten (10) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).