(PC) Carroll v. Price, No. 1:2017cv01312 - Document 10 (E.D. Cal. 2018)
Court Description: ORDER Directing Clerk of Court to File Lodged First Amended Complaint; ORDER Directing Clerk of Court to Randomly Assign District Judge to Action; FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that 9 Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint be DISMISSE D, Without Leave to Amend, as Frivolous signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 5/1/2018. This case has been assigned to Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill and Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe. The new case number is 1:17-cv-01312-LJO-BAM (PC). Referred to Judge O'Neill. Objections to F&R due within fourteen (14) days. (Jessen, A)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RONALD J. CARROLL, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 v. BRANDON PRICE, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Case No. 1:17-cv-01312-BAM ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO FILE LODGED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT (ECF No. 8) ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO RANDOMLY ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE TO ACTION FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS ACTION AS FRIVOLOUS 18 FOURTEEN-DAY DEADLINE 19 20 Plaintiff Ronald J. Carroll (“Plaintiff”) is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma 21 pauperis in this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff initiated this action on 22 October 2, 2017. (ECF No. 1.) Before the Court could screen Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 23 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), Plaintiff lodged a first amended complaint on February 2, 2018. (ECF 24 No. 8.) 25 At this stage in the proceedings, Plaintiff may amend his complaint once as a matter of 26 course. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Therefore, the Clerk of the Court shall be directed to file his first 27 amended complaint lodged on February 2, 2018. (ECF No. 8.) In the interest of judicial 28 1 1 economy, the Court now turns to screening of the first amended complaint. 2 I. Screening Requirement and Standard 3 “Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court 4 shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that ... the action or appeal ... is frivolous 5 or malicious; [or] . . . fails state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 6 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 7 A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 8 pleader is entitled to relief . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not 9 required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 10 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell 11 Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). While a plaintiff’s allegations are taken as 12 true, courts “are not required to indulge unwarranted inferences.” Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 13 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 14 To survive screening, Plaintiff’s claims must be facially plausible, which requires 15 sufficient factual detail to allow the Court to reasonably infer that each named defendant is liable 16 for the misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quotation marks omitted); Moss v. U.S. Secret 17 Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The sheer possibility that a defendant acted unlawfully 18 is not sufficient, and mere consistency with liability falls short of satisfying the plausibility 19 standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quotation marks omitted); Moss, 572 F.3d at 969. Plaintiff’s Allegations 20 II. 21 In his first amended complaint, Plaintiff alleges as follows: 22 I have a comuper Chip Implanted and a wire battery pack in my back. Implanted in me in 1976 in Bainbridge, Ga. After an auto accident Mary Macodonie put an ether mask on my nose and mouth. Placing me unconsious for 13 hours. Scars are stillon back to prove operation. Back was never injuied. Control Center Annonouncer Poisons my mind and body. And uses Electricity to torture me. And uses me to control the weather and mind control all over the world. . Everything is hook up to my spinenal collum and brain, Charges against me were falsified. By said Person . . . Judg, Felex, Bakersfield court ordered A ultrasound in 2006. Never was Done. 23 24 25 26 27 28 (ECF No. 8 at 3) (unedited text). 2 1 2 As relief, Plaintiff seeks an order for an ultrasound viewed by witnesses and removal of the device (and wire and battery pack) on film. Id. 3 III. Discussion 4 A pleading is “factual[ly] frivolous[ ]” when “the facts alleged rise to the level of the 5 irrational or the wholly incredible, whether or not there are judicially noticeable facts available to 6 contradict them.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 25–26 (1992). Section 1915 gives courts 7 “the unusual power to pierce the veil” of a complaint such as that filed by the plaintiff and to 8 “dismiss those claims whose factual contentions are clearly baseless.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 9 U.S. 319, 327 (1989). Clearly baseless factual allegations include those “that are ‘fanciful,’ 10 ‘fantastic,’ and ‘delusional.’ ” Denton, 504 U.S. at 32–33 (quoting Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 325, 327, 11 328). 12 Plaintiff’s allegations of an implanted computer chip and battery pack and a control center 13 announcer torturing him, controlling him and using him to control the weather and minds around 14 the world appear to be grounded in delusion, are factually irrational and wholly incredible. 15 Although Plaintiff purports to attach a radiographic report that identifies a thin metallic thread or 16 wire, such report lacks the hallmarks of medical report, including the radiographic image, and 17 appears to have been altered from the original, with multiple typefaces and blank spaces. (ECF 18 No. 8 at 4.) Additionally, Plaintiff’s attached “Statement of Truth” is a rambling narrative 19 alleging, among other things, that Mary Macodonie poisoned him by computer “with saved 20 poison urine and monkey dong” and he has been stalked all of his life by a person operating mind 21 control, putting dust through vent and putting hot water through plumbing. (Id. at 5-6.) Plaintiff 22 also makes assertions regarding “shooters minds” and lists Ted Bundy and Lee H. Oswald. (Id. at 23 6.) 24 IV. Conclusion and Recommendation 25 Plaintiff’s complaint contains factual allegations that are grounded in delusion, fanciful 26 and irrational and wholly incredible. The Court therefore finds Plaintiff’s allegations to be clearly 27 baseless and frivolous. In this instance, no amendment could cure these deficiencies. Nunes v. 28 Ashcroft, 375 F.3d 805, 808 (9th Cir. 2004) (district court should grant leave to amend even if no 3 1 request was made, unless the pleading could not possibly be cured by the allegation of other 2 facts). Accordingly, leave to amend would be futile and this action should be dismissed without 3 leave to amend. See Ebner v. Fresh, Inc., 838 F.3d 958, 968 (9th Cir. 2016) (liberality of 4 amendment does not apply when amendment would be futile). 5 6 7 8 Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is HEREBY DIRECTED to (1) file Plaintiff’s lodged first amended complaint (ECF No. 8); and (2) randomly assign a District Judge to this action. Further, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s first amended complaint be dismissed, without leave to amend, as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 9 These Findings and Recommendation will be submitted to the United States District Judge 10 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen 11 (14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendation, Plaintiff may file written 12 objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 13 Findings and Recommendation.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the 14 specified time may result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the magistrate’s factual 15 findings” on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. 16 Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 17 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Barbara May 1, 2018 A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
