Chevalier v. Fort Knox Storage Pro

Northern District of California, cand-4:2015-cv-01326


Interested in this case?

Current View

Full Text

1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 KIA CHEVALIER, 10 Plaintiff, No. C 15-01326 JSW 11 v. United States District Court For the Northern District of California 12 FORT KNOX STORAGE, et al., ORDER DISMISSING ACTION AND DENYING IN FORMA 13 Defendants. PAUPERIS APPLICATION / 14 15 Now before the Court is a document that purports to be a request for an order granting 16 injunctive relief filed by Plaintiff Kia Chevalier. Although no complaint has been filed in this 17 matter, it appears that Plaintiff is suing Fort Knox Storage and Storage Pro. Beyond the 18 Defendants' names, it is difficult to ascertain the nature of Plaintiff's claims. Plaintiff appears 19 to assert claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1981-1983,1 the "RICO Act 1971," "FRE 451-FRE 20 452-453," and breach of contract. Even assuming that Plaintiff intends to assert civil rights 21 claims, her filing is rambling, incoherent, and states no claims over which this Court has 22 jurisdiction. Moreover, although Plaintiff's filing purports to be a request for a temporary 23 restraining order, most of the document is a lengthy discourse on the underlying facts. 24 A district court may deny in forma pauperis status and sua sponte dismiss an action if 25 federal subject matter jurisdiction is lacking or if the complaint is frivolous. See 28 U.S.C. § 26 1915(e)(2). A complaint is frivolous if "it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact." 27 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). 28 The Court assumes that Plaintiff intended to assert civil rights claims under 42 1 U.S.C. §§ 1981-1983, and not 28 U.S.C. §§ 1981-1983, as stated. 1 If the filings fail to allege that a plaintiff's constitutional or statutory rights have been 2 violated, and no basis exists for the exercise of federal subject matter jurisdiction, there is no 3 "arguable basis in law" under Neitzke and the court on its own initiative may decline to permit 4 the plaintiff to proceed and may dismiss the action under section 1915(d). Cato v. United 5 States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995). "Furthermore, where the complaint is wholly 6 lacking in merit, is 'clearly baseless,' 'fanciful,' or 'delusional' it may be dismissed as 7 frivolous." Borhani v. The Whole World, 2006 WL 1214861, at *1 (N.D. Cal. May 5, 2006) 8 (quoting Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32 (1992)). 9 The gravamen of Plaintiff's filing is that she is being denied access to her storage 10 lockers in Defendants' facility and fears that Defendants may sell or otherwise dispose of her 11 property. Defendants are not state actors and therefore there is no federal jurisdiction for a civil United States District Court For the Northern District of California 12 rights claim. Nor do Plaintiff's other asserted claims – to the extent the Court can decipher 13 what they are – support federal subject matter jurisdiction. If it were possible for Plaintiff to 14 cure these defects, the Court would be required to grant leave to amend. Denton, 504 U.S. at 15 34. However, if it is clear that a plaintiff would be unable to cure deficiencies even if granted 16 leave to amend, a court may dismiss with prejudice. Cato, 70 F.3d at 1106. 17 The Court finds that Plaintiff's filing is wholly without merit and provides no basis for 18 federal jurisdiction. Thus, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma 19 pauperis, DENIES Plaintiff's request for a temporary restraining order, and DISMISSES this 20 action. The Clerk is directed to close the file. 21 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 24 Dated: March 25, 2015 JEFFREY S. WHITE 25 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 26 27 28 2