Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Diaz-Hernandez v. Six Unknown Agents

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit

December 4, 2013

SANTOS DIAZ-HERNANDEZ, Plaintiff,
v.
SIX UNKNOWN AGENTS, et al., Defendants.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

JAMES P. DONOHUE, Magistrate Judge.

The Court is in receipt of a civil rights complaint purportedly filed by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") detainee named Santos Diaz-Hernandez.[1] The complaint was received in an envelope containing several nearly identical complaints identifying other inmate/detainee plaintiffs and bearing a return address for Young Yil Jo, a frequent litigant in this Court. No filing fee or application to proceed with the action in forma pauperis was submitted in conjunction with the complaint and the complaint is not signed. Typically the Court would address such deficiencies by directing a letter to the plaintiff advising him of the deficiencies and providing him an opportunity to correct them. However, in prior cases submitted by Mr. Jo on behalf of other inmates/detainees, mail sent by the Clerk's Office to the purported plaintiff at the address provided by Mr. Jo has consistently been returned with a notation indicating that the plaintiff is not incarcerated at the facility.

It is time consuming for the Court, and ultimately fruitless, to attempt to obtain from the purported plaintiff in these cases the documentation necessary to perfect the submission and permit the case to proceed. Moreover, even if the purported plaintiff were to pay the filing fee or submit an appropriate application to proceed in forma pauperis, the proposed complaint states no cause of action. In fact, the complaint is incomprehensible, fails to set forth sufficient facts to state any claim for relief, and does not appear to involve any acts committed in this federal district.

For these reasons, this Court recommends that this action be dismissed with prejudice under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(ii) and 1915A(b)(1) because the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and is frivolous. This Court further recommends that this dismissal not be deemed a strike for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) as it is not clear that the individual identified as the plaintiff in the complaint is even aware that a complaint has been filed on his behalf.[2]

Any objections to this recommendation must be filed with the Clerk within twenty-one (21) days of the date on which this recommendation is signed. Objections should be noted for consideration on the District Judge's motion calendar for the third Friday after they are filed. Responses to objections may be filed within fourteen (14) days after service of objections. If no timely objections are filed, the matter will be ready for consideration by the District Judge on December 27, 2013.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.