Case 2:10-cv-01253-GMN-LRL Document 3 Filed 08/09/10 Page 1 of 5
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`DISTRICT OF NEVADA
`
`2:10-cv-01253-GMN-LRL
`
`ORDER
`
`)))
`
`
`ERIC GRIFFIN,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`)
`)
`
`vs.
`LAS VEGAS REVIEW JOURNAL
`)
`Defendant.
` /
`
`))
`
`))
`
`This is a prisoner civil rights action. Plaintiff has failed to submit an application to proceed in
`
`forma pauperis on the required form. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1)-(2); Local Rules of Special
`Proceedings 1-1, 1-2. Instead, plaintiff has filed a document styled “motion to proceed without in forma
`pauperis” (docket #1). As set forth below, even in the absence of an application to proceed in forma
`1
`pauperis, the court must dismiss the complaint with prejudice as factually frivolous. The court now
`reviews the complaint as well as a motion for counsel.
`I. Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel
`Plaintiff has filed an “emergency motion for counsel,” seeking the appointment of counsel in this
`case (docket #2). A litigant in a civil rights action does not have a Sixth Amendment right to appointed
`counsel. Storseth v. Spellman, 654 F.2d 1349, 13253 (9 Cir. 1981). In very limited circumstances,
`th
`federal courts are empowered to request an attorney to represent an indigent civil litigant. The
`circumstances in which a court will make such a request, however, are exceedingly rare, and the court
`will make the request under only extraordinary circumstances. United States v. 30.64 Acres of Land,
`
`1 m
`
`The court notes that plaintiff asks to proceed without paying the filing fee “due to the misconduct and the
`edical need of plaintiff,” but the complaint does not allege any medical issue. Because, as will be discussed,
`plaintiff’s complaint must be dismissed as delusional and factually frivolous, plaintiff’s “motion to proceed in
`forma pauperis” is rendered moot.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`

`
`Case 2:10-cv-01253-GMN-LRL Document 3 Filed 08/09/10 Page 2 of 5
`
`795 F.2d 796, 799-800 (9 Cir. 1986); Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9 Cir. 1986).
`th
`th
`A finding of such exceptional circumstances requires that the court evaluate both the likelihood
`of success on the merits and the plaintiff’s ability to articulate his claims in pro se in light of the
`complexity of the legal issues involved. Neither factor is dispositive, and both must be viewed together
`in making a finding. Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9 Cir. 1991)(citing Wilborn, supra, 789
`th
`F.2d at 1331). The district court has considerable discretion in making these findings. The court will
`not enter an order directing the appointment of counsel. As discussed below, plaintiff’s complaint must
`be dismissed with prejudice as factually frivolous. Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel is
`denied.
` II. Screening Standard
`Pursuant to the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), federal courts must dismiss a prisoner’s
`claims, “if the allegation of poverty is untrue,” or if the action “is frivolous or malicious,” “fails to state
`a claim on which relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune
`from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis
`either in law or in fact. Nietzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). The court may, therefore, dismiss
`a claim as frivolous where it is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual
`contentions are clearly baseless. Id. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim,
`however inartfully pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d
`639, 640 (9 Cir. 1989).
`th
`Allegations in a pro se complaint are held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings
`drafted by lawyers. See Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9 (1980); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21
`(1972) (per curiam); see also Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). All
`or part of a complaint filed by a prisoner may be dismissed sua sponte, however, if the prisoner’s claims
`lack an arguable basis either in law or in fact. This includes claims based on legal conclusions that are
`untenable (e.g. claims against defendants who are immune from suit or claims of infringement of a legal
`interest which clearly does not exist), as well as claims based on fanciful factual allegations (e.g.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`2
`
`

`
`Case 2:10-cv-01253-GMN-LRL Document 3 Filed 08/09/10 Page 3 of 5
`
`fantastic or delusional scenarios). See Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327-28; see also McKeever v. Block, 932
`F.2d 795, 798 (9th Cir. 1991). Moreover, “a finding of factual frivolousness is appropriate when the
`facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible, whether or not there are judicially
`noticeable facts available to contradict them.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992). When a
`court dismisses a complaint under § 1915(e), the plaintiff should be given leave to amend the complaint
`with directions as to curing its deficiencies, unless it is clear from the face of the complaint that the
`deficiencies could not be cured by amendment. See Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9 Cir.
`th
`1995).
`III. Instant Complaint
`Plaintiff, who is detained at the North Las Vegas Detention Center (“NLVDC”), has named as
`defendants the Las Vegas Review Journal (“Review Journal”) and Doe defendants. Plaintiff’s rambling
`complaint is difficult to decipher, but he appears to allege that the Review Journal “ran an ad” falsely
`stating that plaintiff was guilty of a crime, which biased the grand jury that returned an indictment
`against plaintiff. Allegations include that the newspaper deprived plaintiff of his right to a fair trial and
`failed to report that he is being held hostage and tortured, that
`fbi/AAG welsh is refusing to investigate our arrest suspect who
`federal express 4 fake U.S. postal money order to Mr. Griffin home and
`also mailed Mr. Griffin corporate check from Canada with Wells Fargo
`as the bank on the check which the check was for 30 thousand dollars .
`. . . [that] Canadian investigators had evidence that the use of these
`banned weapons which murder infant Jaden Austin and killed a veteran
`Herbert Decker and now is being used on Mr. Griffin from the same
`house hold and other citizen was being ordered by the White House as a
`part of the NSA illegal spy program and the CIA and FBI torture program
`. . . . and [that] Mr. Griffin had a major contract with a company . . . to
`make a counter weapon for citizen and soldiers and victims of these cover
`weapons but the White House made them stop working on this counter
`weapon. . . .
`The court notes plaintiff’s lengthy history as a litigant before this court. Court records indicate
`
`that plaintiff has filed at least twenty-five actions in this court, prior and subsequent to his detention.
`(See, e.g., Griffin, et al. v. Steward, et al., 2:06-cv-00122-KJD-RJJ; Griffin et al. v. Dept. of Defence
`[sic] et al., 2:07-cv-01266-RLH-RJJ; People of Iran et al. v. United States Department of Justice, et al.,
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`3
`
`

`
`Case 2:10-cv-01253-GMN-LRL Document 3 Filed 08/09/10 Page 4 of 5
`
`2:10-cv-00087-RCJ-PAL; People of China et al. v. United States Department of Justice, et al., 2:10-cv-
`00091-JCM-PAL). Numerous complaints filed by plaintiff have been dismissed with prejudice for
`setting forth fantastic and delusional claims that lack any tenable legal theory. (See, e.g., Griffin v. Bush,
`2:07-cv-00617-RCJ-GWF (dismissing with prejudice “based on an indisputably meritless legal theory
`and frivolity” complaint that included allegations that President George W. Bush was involved in
`injecting plaintiff’s brain with chemicals used to place subliminal and hypnotic messages into his brain
`causing torture and mind control) (docket #s 3, 7); Griffin v. White House, et al., 2:08-cv-00303-RCJ-
`GWF (dismissing with prejudice “based on an indisputably meritless legal theory and frivolity”
`complaint that included allegations that plaintiff was being held hostage by “voice to skull/mkultra” an
`alleged biological weapon and that Dick Cheney “violated” him by not informing Senator Reid’s office
`to aid plaintiff by removing the banned biological weapon) (docket #s 2, 4); Griffin v. Leavitt et al.,
`2:09-cv-00845-PMP-GWF (dismissing with prejudice as “fantastic, delusional, and irrational” complaint
`that alleged torture by “Voice-to-Skull technology”) (docket #s 5, 11); Griffin et al. v. Pro, 2:09-cv-
`01126-RCJ-GWF (noting that plaintiff has filed numerous lawsuits with this court alleging that he is
`being tortured by technological devices or chemicals that allow the government to eavesdrop on plaintiff,
`and dismissing with prejudice as “fantastic, delusional and irrational” complaint that included allegations
`that the court has covered up a “RICO Act crime” that resulted in several deaths and the ongoing assault
`of plaintiff) (docket #s 5, 8)).
`Here, lack of an application to proceed in forma pauperis notwithstanding, the court finds that
`plaintiff’s allegations are fantastic, delusional and irrational. This complaint must be dismissed with
`prejudice as frivolous, as it is clear from the face of the complaint that the deficiencies cannot be cured
`by amendment. The court need not reach the issue of the propriety of attempting to name the Review
`Journal as defendant in this action.
`IV. Conclusion
`IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Clerk shall FILE the complaint (docket #1-1).
`IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice as
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`4
`
`

`
`Case 2:10-cv-01253-GMN-LRL Document 3 Filed 08/09/10 Page 5 of 5
`
`delusional and factually frivolous.
`IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to proceed without in forma pauperis
`(docket #1) is DENIED.
`IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s “emergency motion for counsel” (docket #2) is
`DENIED.
`IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall ENTER JUDGMENT accordingly and close
`this case.
`DATED this _______ day of August, 2010.
`
`
`GLORIA M. NAVARRO
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`5
`
`9th