(PS) Hendrie v. United States of America et al, No. 2:2006cv01617 - Document 17 (E.D. Cal. 2006)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Judge Dale A. Drozd on 8/3/06 ORDERING that pltf's 4 Request to Proceed IFP is GRANTED and all other pending requests and 8 motions are DENIED. It is RECOMMENDED that this matter be Dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Pltf may file written objections with the court w/in 10 days. (Brown, T) Modified on 4/3/2007 (Kirkpatrick, S).

Download PDF

(PS) Hendrie v. United States of America et al Case 2:06-cv-01617-LKK-DAD Doc. 17 Document 17 Filed 08/03/2006 Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DANIEL FRANCIS HENDRIE, 12 No. CIV.S-06-1617 LKK DAD PS Plaintiff, ORDER AND 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 ____________________________/ 17 18 Plaintiff, proceeding in this action pro se, has requested 19 leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 20 This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 21 72-302(c)(21), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 22 Plaintiff has submitted an affidavit making the showing 23 required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). 24 proceed in forma pauperis will be granted. 25 26 Accordingly, the request to Plaintiff’s handwritten complaint and his subsequently filed amended complaint are unintelligible. Plaintiff’s difficult to 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:06-cv-01617-LKK-DAD Document 17 Filed 08/03/2006 Page 2 of 3 1 decipher handwriting, which is accompanied by various lines, arrows, 2 boxes, numbers, unusual punctuation and profanity, is densely 3 scrawled across a series of pages. 4 precise nature of this action, which apparently is directed at the 5 United States of America, President George W. Bush, former President 6 William J. Clinton, and perhaps others. 7 jurisdiction is alleged. 8 court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action. 9 v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 682 (recognizing that a claim is subject to It is impossible to determine the No basis for federal Indeed, the undersigned finds that the See Bell 10 dismissal for want of jurisdiction where it is “wholly insubstantial 11 and frivolous” and “so patently without merit”); Hagans v. Levine, 12 415 U.S. 528, 543 (stating that a claim may be dismissed for lack of 13 jurisdiction where it is “so insubstantial, implausible, foreclosed 14 by prior decisions of this Court or otherwise completely devoid of 15 merit as not to involve a federal controversy within the jurisdiction 16 of the District Court”). 17 1227 (9th Cir. 1984)(“A paid complaint that is ‘obviously frivolous’ 18 does not confer federal subject matter jurisdiction and may be 19 dismissed sua sponte before service of process.”)(citations omitted). 20 Accordingly, the undersigned will recommend that this action be 21 dismissed with prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 22 See also Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, Plaintiff also has filed a flurry of motions since 23 initiating this action on July 21, 2006. 24 confusing and indecipherable as plaintiff’s complaint and amended 25 complaint, and together with those pleadings, demonstrate that 26 granting leave to amend his complaint would be futile. 2 Those motions are as Case 2:06-cv-01617-LKK-DAD Document 17 Filed 08/03/2006 Page 3 of 3 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's request 2 for leave to proceed in forma pauperis in the above-listed action is 3 granted. 4 5 All other pending requests and motions are denied. IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this matter be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 6 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). These findings and recommendations are submitted to the 7 United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the 8 provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 9 being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may Within ten (10) days after 10 file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all 11 parties. 12 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” 13 advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may 14 waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. 15 v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 16 DATED: August 3, 2006. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to 17 18 19 20 DAD:th Ddadl\orders.prose\hendrie1617.ifp.f&r 21 22 23 24 25 26 3 Plaintiff is See Martinez

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.