CRAM v. U.S. INTERIOR

No. 2:16-cv-02870-JAD-CWH.

Barbara Ruth Cram, Plaintiff v. U.S. Interior, Defendant

United States District Court, D. Nevada.

Editors Note
Cause: Civil Miscellaneous Case
Nature of Suit: 890 Other Statutory Actions
Source: PACER


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Barbara Ruth Cram, Plaintiff, Pro Se.


Order Certifying that In Forma Pauperis Status Should Not Continue on Appeal

JENNIFER A. DORSEY, District Judge.

Pro se plaintiff Barbara Ruth Cram sued the "U.S. Interior" alleging that she and her newborn baby were both stabbed, beheaded, and murdered by "subject[s]" she described as "ventriloquists [that] sound like each other and have white hair," who "work in corrections," and are "members of a roving gang." Cram, however, failed to describe how the roving gang of white haired ventriloquists that murdered her and her baby implicated the "U.S. Interior," when and how. Magistrate Judge Bill Hoffman granted Cram's application to proceed in forma pauperis but recommended that Cram's complaint be dismissed with prejudice because her allegations "describe[d] fantastic and delusional scenarios and [did] not state a claim upon which relief can be granted."1 Cram timely objected.

In Cram's disjointed objection to Judge Hoffman's report and recommendation, Cram raised additional allegations of "guarding judges," "Janet Reno's home," "the Secretary of State," "the U.S. President[,] and more than one senator that became president," and also "being knifed hundreds of times . . . [and] dropped on the freeway in the travel lanes to die under cars."2 After reviewing de novo those portions of the report and recommendation that Cram objected to, I agreed that Cram's complaint lacks any plausible factual allegations and is replete with delusional and frivolous claims. I, therefore, adopted Magistrate Judge Hoffman's report and recommendation and dismissed Cram's complaint with prejudice and denied all pending motions as moot.3

The Ninth Circuit has referred this matter back to me to determine whether Cram's in forma pauperis status should continue on appeal, which requires me to determine whether her appeal is frivolous or taken in bad faith.4 This case was dismissed at the trial level for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and this defect will continue on appeal. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in my dismissal order, I HEREBY CERTIFY that this appeal is frivolous and taken in bad faith and that in forma pauperis status should not continue on appeal.

The Clerk of Court is directed to send a copy of this order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (reference case number 17-15933).

FootNotes


1. ECF No. 7 (citing Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126 (9th Cir. 2000) (stating that a district court is not required to provide leave to amend a complaint if the complaint could not possibly be cured by the allegation of other facts)).
2. ECF No. 10.
3. ECF No. 13.
4. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); see also Hooker v. American Airlines, 302 F.3d 1091, 1092 (9th Cir. 2002).

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