Unpublished Disposition, 897 F.2d 533 (9th Cir. 1990)

MEMORANDUM^** 

John Elder Moffat appeals pro se and in forma pauperis the district court's sua sponte dismissal of his complaint for damages filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and several other statutes. We review de novo, Jackson v. State of Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1989), and affirm.

Moffat's twenty-five page handwritten complaint requests damages "for both the United States and himself" and alleges that there exists a variety of plots against him and the United States. Few allegations in the complaint have any relevance to the several Coconino County Attorneys and the Coconino County Attorney's Office, who are the named defendants in this case. Instead, the complaint purports to chronicle Moffat's life for the five year period prior to the filing of the complaint. We may decipher from Moffat's complaint and from his brief on appeal that he has four claims against the named defendants.

First, Moffat contends that various individuals in the Coconino County Attorney's Office refused to accept any form of evidence or testimony linking a number of dangerous and sociopathic individuals to their crimes. Second, Moffat contends that members of the County Attorney's Office acted to assist the numerous murder attempts perpetrated against him during the past five years. Third, Moffat contends that the County Attorney has no right to hold public office on any level of government.¹  Fourth, Moffat contends that the other defendants "are guilty of slander, libel and kidnapping (presumably for the purpose of slave-trading) at the very least and are quite guilty of murder."²  The district court dismissed the complaint as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d).³ 

Frivolous in forma pauperis complaints may be dismissed sua sponte under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). Neitzke v. Williams, 109 S. Ct. 1827, 1831 (1989). A complaint is frivolous "where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact." Id. Generally, the district court must afford a pro se plaintiff notice of the deficiencies of the complaint and an opportunity to amend prior to dismissal. Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987). However, if it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint cannot be cured, the district court may dismiss the complaint without granting leave to amend. Id.

The district court was correct in dismissing Moffat's complaint without allowing him leave to amend. Moffat's allegations are wholly fanciful and therefore have no arguable basis in fact. See Neitzke 109 S. Ct. at 1831 & n. 5. The deficiency is not curable by amendment. See Noll, 809 F.2d at 1448.

AFFIRMED.