Alldredge v. Klinton et al, No. 3:2016cv01918 - Document 14 (S.D. Cal. 2016)
Court Description: ORDER granting 11 and 13 Motions to Proceed in forma pauperis, and (2) Dismissing Complaint as Frivolous Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b). The Secretary CDCR, or his designee, is ordered to collect from prison trust account the $350 balance of the filing fee owed in this case by collecting monthly payments from the trust account in an amount equal to 20% of the preceding month income credited to the account and forward payments to the Clerk of the Cour t each time the amount in the account exceeds $10 in accordance with 28 USC 1915(b)(2). Plaintiff's Complaint (ECF No. 1) is dismissed as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b). Because the Court finds furth er amendment futile, leave to amend is denied. The Court certifies that an IFP appeal from this Order of dismissal would not be taken "in good faith" pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). (Order electronically transmitted to Secretary of CDCR). Signed by Judge Janis L. Sammartino on 9/9/2016. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(kcm)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 JOSEPH ALLDREDGE aka Christ Tea Party 1773, CDCR #P-48941, Case No.: 16-CV-1918 JLS (JLB) ORDER: (1) GRANTING MOTIONS TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS, AND (2) DISMISSING COMPLAINT AS FRIVOLOUS PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) AND 1915A(b) Plaintiff, 13 vs. 14 15 16 17 $HE D’EVIL KLINTON; DAEMON KRAUT KOMMOUISTA TRAITORS; SATAN OBAMA, (ECF Nos. 11, 13) Defendants. 18 19 20 Plaintiff “Papa” Joseph Alldredge, aka “Christ Tea Party 1773,” a state prisoner 21 currently incarcerated at Kern Valley State Prison located in Delano, California, and 22 proceeding pro se, has filed a civil action. (Compl., ECF No. 1). In addition, Plaintiff has 23 filed two Motions to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (IFP) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 24 (IFP Mots., ECF Nos. 11, 13.) IFP MOTIONS 25 26 All parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in a district court of the 27 United States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of 28 /// 1 16-CV-1918 JLS (JLB) 1 $400.1 See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed despite the plaintiff’s failure to 2 prepay the entire fee only if he is granted leave to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 3 § 1915(a). See Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 2007); Rodriguez v. 4 Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). However, if the plaintiff is a prisoner and he 5 is granted leave to proceed IFP, he nevertheless remains obligated to pay the entire fee in 6 “increments,” Bruce v. Samuels, 136 S. Ct. 627, 629 (2016); Williams v. Paramo, 775 F.3d 7 1182, 1185 (9th Cir. 2015), regardless of whether his action is ultimately dismissed, see 28 8 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) & (2); Taylor v. Delatoore, 281 F.3d 844, 847 (9th Cir. 2002). 9 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, as amended by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 10 a prisoner seeking leave to proceed IFP must also submit a “certified copy of the trust fund 11 account statement (or institutional equivalent) for . . . the six-month period immediately 12 preceding the filing of the complaint.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2); Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 13 1113, 1119 (9th Cir. 2005). From the certified trust account statement, the Court assesses 14 an initial payment of 20% of (a) the average monthly deposits in the account for the past 15 six months, or (b) the average monthly balance in the account for the past six months, 16 whichever is greater, unless the prisoner has no assets. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1); Taylor, 17 281 F.3d at 850. The institution having custody of the prisoner then collects subsequent 18 payments, assessed at 20% of the preceding month’s income, in any month in which the 19 prisoner’s account exceeds $10, and forwards them to the Court until the entire filing fee 20 is paid. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2); Bruce, 136 S. Ct. at 629 21 In support of his IFP Motions, Plaintiff has submitted a certified copy of his trust 22 account statement pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2) and Civil Local Rule 3.2. Andrews, 23 398 F.3d at 1119. These statements shows that Plaintiff had an available balance of zero. 24 (See ECF No. 11 at 7; ECF No. 13 at 3.) 25 26 1 27 28 In addition to the $350 statutory fee, all parties filing civil actions on or after May 1, 2013, must pay an additional administrative fee of $50. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) (Judicial Conference Schedule of Fees, District Court Misc. Fee Schedule) (eff. May 1, 2013). However, the additional $50 administrative fee is waived if the plaintiff is granted leave to proceed IFP. Id. 2 16-CV-1918 JLS (JLB) 1 Therefore, the Court assesses no initial partial filing fee pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2 § 1915(b)(1). The Court does, however, direct the Secretary of the California Department 3 of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), or his designee, to instead collect the entire 4 $350 balance of the filing fees required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914 and forward them to the Clerk 5 of the Court pursuant to the installment payment provisions set forth in 28 U.S.C. 6 § 1915(b)(1). SCREENING PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(E)(2) & 1915A(B) 7 8 I. Legal Standard 9 The PLRA also obligates the Court to review complaints filed by all persons 10 proceeding IFP and by those, like Plaintiff, who are “incarcerated or detained in any facility 11 [and] accused of, convicted of, sentenced for, or adjudicated delinquent for, violations of 12 criminal law or the terms or conditions of parole, probation, pretrial release, or diversionary 13 program,” “as soon as practicable after docketing.” See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2), (h) and 14 1915A(a). Under these provisions of the PLRA, the Court must sua sponte dismiss 15 complaints, or any portions thereof, which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or 16 which seek damages from defendants who are immune. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) 17 and 1915A(b); Rhodes v. Robinson, 621 F.3d 1002, 1004 (9th Cir. 2010) (discussing 28 18 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000) (discussing 19 § 1915(e)(2)) (en banc). 20 “[W]hen determining whether a complaint states a claim, a court must accept as true 21 all allegations of material fact and must construe those facts in the light most favorable to 22 the plaintiff.” Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000); Barren v. Harrington, 23 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (“The language of § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) parallels the 24 language of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).”). In addition, the Court’s duty to 25 liberally construe a pro se’s pleadings, see Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Dep’t, 839 26 F.2d 621, 623 (9th Cir. 1988), is “particularly important in civil rights cases,” Ferdik v. 27 Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1261 (9th Cir. 1992) (citing Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 28 1137 (9th Cir. 1987)). In giving liberal interpretation to a pro se civil rights complaint, 3 16-CV-1918 JLS (JLB) 1 however, the court may not “supply essential elements of the claim that were not initially 2 pled.” Ivey v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). “Vague 3 and conclusory allegations of official participation in civil rights violations are not 4 sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss.” Id. (citing Johnson v. Wells, 566 F.2d 1016 5 (5th Cir. 1978); Kennedy v. H & M Landing, Inc., 529 F.2d 987 (9th Cir. 1976); Keker v. 6 Procunier, 398 F.Supp. 756, 766 (E.D. Cal. 1975)). 7 Section 1983 imposes two essential proof requirements upon a claimant: (1) that a 8 person acting under color of state law committed the conduct at issue, and (2) that the 9 conduct deprived the claimant of some right, privilege, or immunity protected by the 10 Constitution or laws of the United States. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983; see also Nelson v. 11 Campbell, 541 U.S. 637, 643 (2004); Haygood v. Younger, 769 F.2d 1350, 1354 (9th Cir. 12 1985) (en banc). 13 II. Analysis 14 A. 15 Plaintiff’s Complaint is difficult to decipher, as many of the claims Plaintiff is 16 attempting to allege are disjointed and incomprehensible. Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of 17 Civil Procedure provides that to state a claim for relief, a pleading must contain “a short 18 and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction” and “a short and plain 19 statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1) 20 & (2). Here, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s Complaint falls shorts of complying with Rule 21 8. Rule 8 22 B. 23 Plaintiff’s Complaint also sets forth claims that appear to be delusional. A complaint 24 “is frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 25 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). Plaintiff’s pleading is entitled “1773 First Amendment Motion 26 & Petition for ‘Grand Jury’ Indictment Treason.” (ECF No. 1.) His Complaint names as 27 Defendants “$he D’evil Klinton” and “Satan Obama.” (See id.) There are no coherent 28 statements, sentences, or factual allegations found anywhere in these filings. Frivolous Claims 4 16-CV-1918 JLS (JLB) 1 The Court therefore finds the claims in Plaintiff’s Complaint to be frivolous because 2 they lack even “an arguable basis either in law or in fact” and appear “fanciful,” “fantastic,” 3 or “delusional.” Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 325, 328. CONCLUSION 4 5 Good cause appearing therefor, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 6 1. Plaintiff’s IFP Motions (ECF Nos. 11, 13) are GRANTED. 7 2. The Secretary of California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, or 8 his designee, SHALL COLLECT from Plaintiff’s prison trust account the $350 balance 9 of the filing fee owed in this case by collecting monthly payments from the account in an 10 amount equal to twenty percent (20%) of the preceding month’s income and FORWARD 11 payments to the Clerk of the Court each time the amount in the account exceeds $10 in 12 accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). ALL PAYMENTS SHALL BE CLEARLY 13 IDENTIFIED BY THE NAME AND NUMBER ASSIGNED TO THIS ACTION. 14 3. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to serve a copy of this Order on Scott 15 Kernan, Secretary, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, 1515 S Street, 16 Suite 502, Sacramento, California 95814. 17 4. Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED as frivolous pursuant to 28 18 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b). Because the Court finds further amendment futile, 19 leave to amend is DENIED. See Cahill v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 80 F.3d 336, 339 (9th Cir. 20 1996) (holding that denial of leave to amend is not an abuse of discretion where further 21 amendment would be futile). 22 5. The Court CERTIFIES that an IFP appeal from this Order of dismissal would 23 not be taken “in good faith” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). See Coppedge v. United 24 States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962); Gardner v. Pogue, 558 F.2d 548, 550 (9th Cir. 1977) 25 (holding that an indigent appellant is permitted to proceed IFP on appeal only if the appeal 26 would not be frivolous). 27 /// 28 /// 5 16-CV-1918 JLS (JLB) 1 2 3 This Order concludes the litigation in this matter. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment and close the file. IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 5 Dated: September 9, 2016 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6 16-CV-1918 JLS (JLB)
]]>
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.
