Case Information
*1 Case 8:24-cv-00850-CJC-ADS Document 7 Filed 05/01/24 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:17 *2 Case 8:24-cv-00850-CJC-ADS Document 7 Filed 05/01/24 Page 2 of 2 Page ID #:18
When screening a complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the Court must identify cognizable claims and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim on which relief may be granted or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Dismissal for failure to state a claim under § 1915(e)(2) incorporates the standard for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012). To survive § 1915 review, a complaint must “contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). The court liberally construes pro se complaints and may only dismiss them “if it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.” Nordstrom v. Ryan, 762 F.3d 903, 908 (9th Cir. 2014). In this case, Plaintiff appears to assert that "Mozilla Foundation" has, for the past four years, not allowed him to use the Internet because the Firefox browser "corrupt[s] and shut[s] off [his] personal devices." (Dkt. 1.) He claims that, despite being indigent and unhoused, he has "285 personal devices, 50 laptops, 50 tablets, 50 chromebooks." (Id. at 4.) According to Plaintiff, this has made it impossible for him to find a job. (Id.) Plaintiff's allegations are fanciful and frivolous. Plaintiff asserts that Defendant uses "Augmented Reality," which "actively makes a connection with [his] retina. No two are the same. No matter where [Plaintiff is] they ID [him] from any device anywhere. In less than 5 seconds [they] shut off and crash [his] devices." (Id. at 5.) The relief he seeks from the Court is to "share the same harsh unfair unacceptable condition to them." (Id.) Because Plaintiff's claim is frivolous and fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, his case must be DISMISSED. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); Anderson v. Sy, 486 F. App’x 644 (9th Cir. 2012) (“The district court properly dismissed Anderson’s action as frivolous because the complaint contains indecipherable facts and unsupported legal assertions.”). “Dismissals on these grounds are often made sua sponte prior to the issuance of process, so as to spare prospective defendants the inconvenience and expense of answering such complaints.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324 (1989) (internal citation omitted).
( attach additional pages if necessary ) ORDER ON REQUEST TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS (NON-PRISONER CASE)