From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Riches v. Ahmadinejad

United States District Court, N.D. California
Nov 28, 2007
No. C 07-5656 MJJ (PR) (N.D. Cal. Nov. 28, 2007)

Opinion

No. C 07-5656 MJJ (PR).

November 28, 2007


ORDER OF DISMISSAL


Plaintiff, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this pro se complaint against Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the President of Iran, as well as other Iranian Citizens, military members, and banks.

A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any cognizable claims and dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.See id. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Pro se pleadings must, however, be liberally construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

Sections 1915A and 1915(e)(2) accord judges the unusual power to pierce the veil of the complaint's factual allegations and dismiss as frivolous those claims whose factual contentions are clearly baseless. See Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32 (1992). Examples are claims describing fantastic or delusional scenarios with which federal district judges are all too familiar. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 328 (1989). To pierce the veil of the complaint's factual allegations means that a court is not bound, as it usually is when making a determination based solely on the pleadings, to accept without question the truth of the plaintiff's allegations. See Denton, 504 U.S. at 32. A finding of factual frivolousness is appropriate when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible, whether or not there are judicially noticeable facts available to contradict them. See id. at 32-33.

Plaintiff seeks a temporary restraining order against defendants to stop their alleged enrichment of uranium. He alleges that if defendants plan to "attack America on New Years 2008," and that if they launch a nuclear weapon at Israel or the United States, then prison guards "will not come to work, I will be left in my cell locked without food or water and I will die." He further alleges defendants "plan on putting me in the prison air conditioning system without clothes, turning it to minus — 40 degrees, forcing me to drink cold red bull energy drinks to stay awake to suffer." As plaintiff's allegations are clearly baseless, irrational or wholly incredible, the complaint will be dismissed as frivolous under sections 1915A and 1915(e)(2).

For the foregoing reasons, this action is DISMISSED.

The Clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Riches v. Ahmadinejad

United States District Court, N.D. California
Nov 28, 2007
No. C 07-5656 MJJ (PR) (N.D. Cal. Nov. 28, 2007)
Case details for

Riches v. Ahmadinejad

Case Details

Full title:JONATHAN LEE RICHES, Plaintiff, v. MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD, et al., Defendants

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

Date published: Nov 28, 2007

Citations

No. C 07-5656 MJJ (PR) (N.D. Cal. Nov. 28, 2007)

Citing Cases

Riches v. National Enquirer

claim upon which relief may be granted, includes: Riches v. Craig, Civ. No. 07-538-JJF (D. Del. Oct. 5,…