OLAJIDE v. GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Case No. 3:17-cv-01017-JD.

OLANAPO OLAJIDE, Plaintiff, v. GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Defendant.

United States District Court, N.D. California.

Editors Note
Applicable Law: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Cause: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Nature of Suit: 190 Contract: Other
Source: PACER


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

AD Olajide Olanapo, Plaintiff, Pro Se.


ORDER GRANTING IFP APPLICATION, DISMISSING COMPLAINT, AND DENYING MOTIONS

Re: Dkt. Nos. 1, 3, 5, 7, 8.

JAMES DONATO, District Judge.

Plaintiff Olanapo Olajide, who is acting pro se, has asked to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP"). Dkt. No. 3. He has also requested permission for electronic case filing and seeks a temporary restraining order with an immediate hearing date. Dkt. Nos. 5, 7, 8. The IFP request is granted, but the complaint is dismissed and the TRO is denied. Permission for electronic filing is declined.

IFP requests are evaluated under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, and the first question is whether a plaintiff's financial status excuses payment of the court's filing fees. The answer here is yes. Olajide is unemployed, does not own a home or other physical assets, and has less than $25 in his bank account. Dkt. No. 3. Olajide may proceed on an IFP basis.

The next question is whether the complaint is sufficient to stand, and the answer is no. The Court may "at any time" dismiss an IFP complaint that "(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The standard is the same as the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) standard for failure to state a claim. Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d construction of his complaint and the benefit of any doubt about its sufficiency, id., but the pleading requirements of Rule 8 apply just as much here as in all other federal civil cases.

As currently framed, the complaint cannot proceed. It is a rambling discursion that runs for over 23 single-spaced pages and touches on a myriad of subjects ranging from the illegitimacy of the United States Code and allegations of government persecution to the nature of legal tender and the gold standard. The requested relief appears to be damages in the amount of one trillion dollars payable to plaintiff, among other remedies. See generally Dkt. No. 1. Nothing in the complaint amounts to a plausible claim for relief.

While the Court has considerable doubt that amendment will be effective, Olajide may file an amended complaint no later than May 8, 2017. If Olajide chooses to amend, he should be mindful of the Rule 8 pleading standards and whether the Governor of California is a proper defendant.

The motions for a temporary restraining order and for an emergency hearing are denied. The request for permission to use electronic case filing is declined.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases