Case 2:10-cv-01204-KJD-PAL Document 10 Filed 08/09/10 Page 1 of 5
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`DISTRICT OF NEVADA
`
`2:10-cv-01204-KJD-PAL
`
`ORDER
`
`)))
`
`
`ERIC GRIFFIN,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`)
`)
`
`vs.
`HARRY REID, et al.,
`)
`Defendants.
` /
`
`))
`
`))
`
`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 waive in forma pauperis”
`(docket #1). As set forth below, even in the absence of an application to proceed in forma pauperis,
`1
`the court must dismiss the complaint with prejudice as factually frivolous. The court now reviews the
`complaint, as well as a motion for counsel.
`
`The court notes that plaintiff asserts that he is being denied the proper in forma pauperis
`1
`application forms. Because, as will be discussed, plaintiff’s complaint must be dismissed as delusional
`and factually frivolous, plaintiff’s “motion to waive 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-01204-KJD-PAL Document 10 Filed 08/09/10 Page 2 of 5
`
`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
`th
`circumstances, 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, 795 F.2d 796, 799-800 (9 Cir. 1986); Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9 Cir.
`th
`th
`1986).
`
`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,
`th
`supra, 789 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
`
`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-01204-KJD-PAL Document 10 Filed 08/09/10 Page 3 of 5
`
`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. 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. 1995).
`th
`III. Instant Complaint
`Plaintiff, who is detained at the North Las Vegas Detention Center (“NLVDC”), has sued
`United States Senator Harry Reid, unspecified federal judges, “Congressional Oversite Committee
`Chairmen,” and a public defender. While difficult to decipher, plaintiff appears to allege that various
`congressmen refused to help him “which caused Mr. Griffin to further be held captive, tortured and now
`illegally detained,” federal judges have “allowed fugitives to cover up evidence and endanger other
`citizens and their kids with illegal kinds of weapons that senator Harry Reid knows that is being used
`on Mr. Griffin,” and the public defender refused to order proper medical testing by experts that would
`show plaintiff was being held hostage and tortured during the time of the alleged crime and refused to
`draft an affidavit showing how plaintiff’s case was connected to the “People v. Rod Blagojevich matter,
`
`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-01204-KJD-PAL Document 10 Filed 08/09/10 Page 4 of 5
`
`showing how Mr. Griffin’s case was connected to the corruption case and how President Obama’s team
`obstructed Mr. Griffin from filing an affidavit.”
`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., 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
`
`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-01204-KJD-PAL Document 10 Filed 08/09/10 Page 5 of 5
`
`prejudice as frivolous, as it is clear from the face of the complaint that the deficiencies cannot be cured
`by amendment.
` 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 delusional and factually frivolous.
`IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to waive 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 plaintiff’s motion for change of venue (docket #3)
`
`is DENIED.
`
`IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s emergency motion for miscellaneous relief
`(docket #4) is DENIED.
`IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s emergency motion to dismiss competency
`hearing (docket #5) is DENIED.
`IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to subpoena (docket #6) is
`
`DENIED.
`
`IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s emergency motion to hire an investigating
`team (docket #7) is DENIED.
`IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall ENTER JUDGMENT accordingly
`and close this case.
`DATED: August 9, 2010.
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`5
`
`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