(PC) Craig v. Agostini et al, No. 2:2018cv03044 - Document 12 (E.D. Cal. 2019)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 1/16/2019 RECOMMENDING 11 Second IFP Application be denied as incomplete; this action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a cognizable claim; 7 , 9 , and 10 Miscellaneous Motions be denied as moot; and the Clerk of Court be directed to close this case. Referred to Judge William B. Shubb. Objections due within 21 days after being served with these findings and recommendations. (Henshaw, R)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Craig v. Agostini et al Doc. 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 NORMAN JOHN CRAIG, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 15 v. No. 2:18-cv-3044 WBS AC P FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS JOHN D. AGOSTINI, et al., Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, who is incarcerated at the El Dorado County Jail, has filed a putative pro se civil 18 rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court has twice informed plaintiff that, to 19 proceed with this case, he must submit a completed in forma pauperis application and a copy of 20 his inmate trust account statement. See ECF Nos. 3, 8. The order filed December 20, 2018 21 informed plaintiff that “[f]ailure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation that 22 this action be dismissed without prejudice.” ECF No. 8 at 2. Thereafter, plaintiff again filed an 23 incomplete application to proceed in forma pauperis – it did not include a completed certification 24 or a copy of his trust account statement. ECF No. 11. 25 Plaintiff’s failure to abide by the court’s orders supports dismissal of this action under 26 both the Local Rules and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Local Rule 110 provides that failure 27 to comply with court orders or rules “may be grounds for imposition of any and all sanctions 28 authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court.” Similarly, the Federal 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Rules of Civil Procedure authorize dismissal of an action for failure to prosecute or to comply 2 with the rules or orders of the court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 3 Moreover, review of plaintiff’s complaint demonstrates that it fails to state a cognizable 4 claim. The court must dismiss a complaint brought by a prisoner if it raises claims that are legally 5 frivolous or malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek monetary 6 relief from an immune defendant. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. A claim is legally frivolous when it 7 lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325, 327 8 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th Cir. 1984). 9 Here plaintiff seeks a total of 10 million dollars in damages for “violation of sanctity of 10 personal thoughts, intellectual property rights by continued use of remote neural monitoring 11 devices, drones, nanobot technology . . . false arrest and prosecution.”1 ECF No. 1 at 4. Plaintiff 12 alleges, inter alia, that defendant Sheriff D’Agostini “has illegally implemented use of U.S. 13 Department of Defense technology, ‘remote neural monitoring’ on my person, in violation of U.S. 14 Constitutional protections, Geneva Convention and Human Rights as codified by the United 15 Nations and World Court.” Id. 16 Such allegations and putative claims have routinely been dismissed by the federal courts 17 as noncognizable. See e.g. Banks v. Pivnichny, 2015 WL 3936821, at *5, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18 83594, at *11-2 (D. Idaho 2015) (collecting cases). 19 Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 20 1. Plaintiff’s second application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 11, be denied as 21 incomplete. 22 2. This action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a cognizable claim. 23 3. Plaintiff’s miscellaneous motions, ECF Nos. 7, 9, & 10, be denied as moot. 24 4. The Clerk of Court be directed to close this case. 25 //// 26 1 27 28 Plaintiff has attempted to challenge his arrest and prosecution in other actions filed in this court. See e.g. Craig v. Cissna et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-2505 MCE AC PS; Craig v. El Dorado County Jail, Case No. 2:18-cv-02216 JAM KJN P; Craig v. D’Agostino [sic], Case No. 2:18-cv-02826 KJM DB P. 2 1 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the District Judge assigned to this 2 case pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty-one (21) days after being 3 served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with the 4 court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 5 Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time 6 may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th 7 Cir. 1991). 8 DATED: January 16, 2019 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3
]]>
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.
