Olson v. U.S. Treasury President

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. California
DecidedSeptember 28, 2019
Docket3:19-cv-01517
StatusUnknown

This text of Olson v. U.S. Treasury President (Olson v. U.S. Treasury President) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Olson v. U.S. Treasury President, (S.D. Cal. 2019).

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 STEVEN JOHN OLSON, Case No.: 3:19-cv-01517-JAH-BLM Booking #19705513, 10 ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL Plaintiff, 11 ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE vs. FOR FAILING TO PAY 12 FILING FEE REQUIRED U.S. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, et al., 13 BY 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a), FAILING Defendants. TO MOVE TO PROCEED IN 14 FORMA PAUPERIS PURSUANT 15 TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), AND FAILING TO COMPLY WITH 16 Fed. R. Civ. P. 3, 8(a)(1)-(3) 17 AND 12(h)(3) 18 19 Steven John Olson (“Plaintiff”), while detained at the San Diego Central Jail, and 20 proceeding pro se, has filed a civil complaint entitled “Constitutional and Civil Human 21 Rights Violations.” (See Compl., ECF No. 1 at 1.) 22 As far as the Court can decipher, it appears Plaintiff seeks to sue the U.S. Treasury, 23 NASA Apollo Missions, Napa Wine Country, and the State of California, among others, 24 for discriminating against him as a “handicapped disabled veteran,” causing him “financial 25 problems,” and somehow contributing to his December 2018 arrest by the Escondido 26 Police Department. (Id. at 1-4.) He includes drawings, photographs, and portions of 27 newspaper clipping about a WWII survivor of the Battle of the Bulge, but his pleading is 28 essentially incomprehensible. (Id. at 1-15.) 1 I. Failure to Pay Filing Fee or Request IFP Status 2 However, all parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in any district 3 court of the United States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing 4 fee of $400. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a).1 An action may proceed despite a party’s failure to 5 pay this filing fee only if the party is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) 6 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 7 2007); Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). 8 Plaintiff has not prepaid the $400 in filing and administrative fees required to 9 commence a civil action, and he has not filed a Motion to Proceed IFP in compliance with 10 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Therefore, no civil action can yet proceed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); 11 Andrews, 493 F.3d at 1051. 12 II. Initial Review of Plaintiff’s Pleadings 13 “The first step in a civil action in a United States district court is the filing of [a] 14 complaint with the clerk or the judge.” 4 Wright, Miller, Kane, Marcus & Steinman, Fed. 15 Prac. & Proc. Civ. § 1052 (3d ed. 2002 & Supp. Aug. 2019); Fed. R. Civ. P. 3 (“A civil 16 action is commenced by filing a complaint with the court.”) (emphasis added). Pursuant to 17 FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a), every complaint must contain: “(1) a short and plain statement of the 18 grounds for the court’s jurisdiction,” ... (2) a short and plain statement showing that the 19 pleader is entitled to relief; and (3) a demand for the relief sought.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1)- 20 (3). 21 Federal courts have limited jurisdiction, and limitations on the court’s jurisdiction 22 “must neither be disregarded nor evaded.” Moore v. Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, 657 23 F.3d 890, 894 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing Owen Equip. & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 24 374 (1978)). The Court must determine sua sponte whether it has subject matter 25 26 1 In addition to the $350 statutory fee, civil litigants must pay an additional administrative 27 fee of $50. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) (Judicial Conference Schedule of Fees, District Court Misc. Fee Schedule, § 14 (eff. June 1, 2016). The additional $50 administrative fee does 28 not apply to persons granted leave to proceed IFP. Id. 1 jurisdiction. See Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1116 (9th Cir. 2004). See also 2 Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (“If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter 3 jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.”). Here, while Plaintiff may wish to file a 4 civil rights action, or some claim for relief based on his status as a disabled veteran, his 5 current Complaint fails to invoke federal subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6 § 1983, 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a)(3) or 42 U.S.C. § 12132. See Watson v. Chessman, 362 F. 7 Supp. 2d 1190, 1194 (S.D. Cal. 2005) (“The court will not ... infer allegations supporting 8 federal jurisdiction; federal subject matter [jurisdiction] must always be affirmatively 9 alleged.”). 10 Plaintiff’s Complaint also fails to allege any discernible claim to relief that is 11 “plausible on its face,” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citation omitted), and 12 therefore, it must be dismissed sua sponte pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b), regardless of 13 his IFP status. See Hamilton v. Brown, 630 F.3d 889, 892 n.3 (9th Cir. 2011) (noting court’s 14 obligation under the Prison Litigation Reform Act to “review, before docketing or as soon 15 thereafter as practicable, any civil action brought by a prisoner seeking redress from a 16 governmental entity, officer or employee,” and its requirement to dismiss complaints or 17 any portion thereof that are “frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief 18 may be granted,” or “seek[ing] monetary relief from a defendant who is immune” pursuant 19 to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), (b)). 20 Because Plaintiff is proceeding without counsel, however, the Court will grant him 21 an opportunity to amend. As noted above, however, Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint must 22 comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. “Each allegation [in a pleading] must be 23 simple, concise, and direct. No technical form is required.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Den v. Turner
22 U.S. 541 (Supreme Court, 1824)
Owen Equipment & Erection Co. v. Kroger
437 U.S. 365 (Supreme Court, 1978)
Hamilton v. Brown
630 F.3d 889 (Ninth Circuit, 2011)
Cafasso v. General Dynamics C4 Systems, Inc.
637 F.3d 1047 (Ninth Circuit, 2011)
United States v. Thomas John Maybeck
23 F.3d 888 (Fourth Circuit, 1994)
Kathryn Sheppard v. David Evans and Assoc.
694 F.3d 1045 (Ninth Circuit, 2012)
Hearns v. San Bernardino Police Department
530 F.3d 1124 (Ninth Circuit, 2008)
Andrews v. Cervantes
493 F.3d 1047 (Ninth Circuit, 2007)
Morrison v. United States
270 F. App'x 514 (Ninth Circuit, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Olson v. U.S. Treasury President, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/olson-v-us-treasury-president-casd-2019.