Opinion
22-cv-02788-KAW
06-15-2022
IVY WOODRUFF, Plaintiff, v. JONATHAN GREENBURG, et al., Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING IN FORMA PAUPERIS APPLICATION; ORDER REASSIGNING CASE TO A DISTRICT JUDGE; REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT
RE: DKT. NOS. 1, 2
KANDIS A. WESTMORE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
On May 11, 2022, Plaintiff Ivy Woodruff filed this civil action and application to proceed in forma pauperis. (Compl., Dkt. No. 1; IFP Appl., Dkt. No. 2.) Having considered the application, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis. Additionally, having reviewed Plaintiff's complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the Court reassigns this case to a district judge and recommends that the case be dismissed as being frivolous.
I. LEGAL STANDARD
The in forma pauperis statute provides that the Court shall dismiss the case if at any time the Court determines that the allegation of poverty is untrue, or that the action (1) is frivolous or malicious, (2) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
A complaint is frivolous under Section 1915 where there is no subject matter jurisdiction. See Castillo v. Marshall, 207 F.3d 15, 15 (9th Cir. 1997) (citation omitted); see also Pratt v. Sumner, 807 F.2d 817, 819 (9th Cir. 19987) (recognizing the general proposition that a complaint should be dismissed as frivolous on Section 1915 review where subject matter jurisdiction is lacking).
A complaint may also be dismissed for failure to state a claim, because Section 1915(e)(2) parallels the language of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000). The complaint, therefore, must allege facts that plausibly establish the defendant's liability. See Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-57 (2007). When the complaint has been filed by a pro se plaintiff, courts must “construe the pleadings liberally . . . to afford the petitioner the benefit of any doubt.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010)(citations omitted). Upon dismissal, pro se plaintiffs proceeding in forma pauperis must be given leave to “amend their complaint unless it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by amendment.” Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1235 n.9 (9th Cir. 1984) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 113031 (9th Cir. 2000).
II. DISCUSSION
Plaintiff brings the instant claim against more than fifty Defendants, alleging that they stalked elderly property owners, committed elder abuse, kidnapped, assaulted, conspired, attempted to murder, solicited murder, falsely imprisoned Plaintiff for nine years, fabricated a trial, entrapped, set up Plaintiff for unreported homicide and rape, transferred property, committed wage theft, falsified tax returns, acquired fraudulent loans, covered up an unreported heroin overdose and rape, caused mental injury, violated the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”) by taunting and blocking Plaintiff's stairway, and committed hate crimes. (Compl. ¶¶ 1, 2, 25, 28, 32, 34, 36.) For the most part, Plaintiff does not identify which actions were committed by which Defendants, or explain how Defendants are connected to each other. Plaintiff asserts claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”) and for intentional tort through unsuccessful murder attempts.
The Court finds that dismissal of this case is warranted because the factual allegations are plainly frivolous. Courts have “the unusual power to pierce the veil of the complaint's factual allegations and dismiss those claims whose factual contentions are clearly baseless.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989). Clearly baseless claims, in turn, are those “that are fanciful, fantastic, and delusional.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992) (internal quotation omitted). “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.” Id. at 33.
Here, Plaintiff alleges that over fifty individuals have participated in crimes against Plaintiff that range from HIPPA violations and falsifying tax returns to false imprisonment and attempted murder. Such allegations are clearly frivolous. Compare with Ozim v. City & Cty. of S.F., No. 21-15099, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 34445, at *1 (9th Cir. Nov. 19, 2021) (affirming the district court's dismissal of a complaint based on allegations that a member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors conspired with two assailants to murder the plaintiff); Sierra v. Moon, No. 1:11-CV-01214-LJO-MJS (PC), 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15612, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 2012) (finding allegations that the defendants conspired with third parties to defraud the plaintiff of financial interests and to murder him were frivolous); Davis v. City of S.F., No. 19-cv-03419-PJH, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 215253, at *1-2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 13, 2019) (finding allegations that the mayor of San Francisco, the FBI, a magistrate judge, and others conspired to defraud and murder the plaintiff were frivolous).
Additionally, Plaintiff does not state a claim under RICO. To assert a RICO claim, Plaintiff must allege the “(1) conduct (2) of an enterprise (3) through a pattern (4) of racketeering activity (known as ‘predicate acts') (5) causing injury to plaintiff's business or property.” Living Designs, Inc. v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 431 F.3d 353, 361 (9th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation omitted). Here, Plaintiff fails to explain the connection between the more than fifty Defendants. Plaintiff also alleges fraudulent acts, but fails to explain what each Defendant did or how each Defendant participated in the alleged fraud. See Swartz v. KPMG LLP, 476 F.3d 756, 764-65 (9th Cir. 2007) (“Rule 9(b) does not allow a complaint to merely lump multiple defendants together but requires plaintiffs to differentiate their allegations when suing more than one defendant and inform each defendant separately of the allegations surrounding his alleged participation in the fraud.”).
Accordingly, the Court concludes that the complaint fails to satisfy Section 1915.
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Court REASSIGNS this action to a district judge with the recommendation that the action be DISMISSED, without leave to amend, as frivolous and for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The Court GRANTS Plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis.
Any party may file objections to this report and recommendation with the district judge within 14 days of being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b); N.D. Civil L.R. 72-3. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the district court's order. IBEW Local 595 Trust Funds v. ACS Controls Corp., No. C-10-5568, 2011 WL 1496056, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 20, 2011).
IT IS SO ORDERED.