United States District Court, D. Hawaii
ORDER (1) GRANTING APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA
PAUPERIS, AND (2) DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITHOUT LEAVE TO
Michael Seabright Chief United States District Judge
15, 2018, pro se Plaintiff Jerry Dean Carter
(“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint against Defendant
Gary Charles Zamber (“Defendant”) asserting
federal criminal and civil rights claims. ECF No. 1.
Plaintiff also filed an Application to Proceed in forma
pauperis (“IFP Application”). ECF No. 2. Based on
the following, the court GRANTS the IFP Application and
DISMISSES the Complaint without leave to amend.
Plaintiff's IFP Application is Granted
has made the required showing under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 to
proceed without prepayment of fees. Therefore, the court
GRANTS Plaintiff's IFP Application.
Plaintiff's Complaint is Dismissed Without Leave to
Complaint alleges that Defendant was appointed by the Hawaii
District Court of the Third Circuit, Hilo Division, as
Plaintiff's defense counsel in connection with a state
criminal misdemeanor action - No. 3DCW-18-0000061. Compl. at
PageID #4, ECF No. 1. After being appointed, Defendant
allegedly entered court while it was in session, sat next to
Plaintiff, and announced that he is Plaintiff's counsel.
Id. at PageID #6. Defendant and Plaintiff moved to a
conference room to discuss Plaintiff's case. Id.
Defendant allegedly suggested that Plaintiff plead guilty,
but Plaintiff said “no.” Id. at PageID
#6-7. Plaintiff moved to the door and said “go tell the
judge your decision.” Id. at PageID #7.
Defendant moved to withdraw as counsel, telling the court
that Plaintiff “did not want him.” Id.
at PageID #4. Plaintiff alleges that because he never told
Defendant to resign, Defendant reported false information to
the court. Id. at PageID #4-5, 8. The next 28 pages
of the Complaint include a rambling, confusing narrative of
Plaintiff's life history, various assaults and wrongs
committed against him over the years, and conclusory
allegations concerning numerous individuals not named in this
action. Id. at PageID # 9-36.
filed the instant Complaint asserting claims for violations
of Plaintiff's civil rights guaranteed by the First,
Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, Thirteenth, and Fourteenth Amendments
to the Constitution, state-law claims for slander and
defamation, and criminal claims pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§§ 1001(a)(1) and (2) for providing false
information and promoting a hoax. Id. at PageID #3,
5, 8-9. The Complaint seeks a determination that Defendant is
guilty of all charges and allegations, and damages of $5
million. Id. at PageID #4, 8-9.
Standards of Review
court must subject each civil action commenced pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(a) to mandatory screening and order the
dismissal of any claims it finds “frivolous, malicious,
failing to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or
seeking monetary relief from a defendant immune from such
relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see,
e.g., Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th
Cir. 2001) (per curiam) (holding that “the provisions
of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) are not limited to
prisoners”); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122,
1127 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (stating that 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e) “not only permits but requires” the court
to dismiss sua sponte an IFP complaint that fails to state a
is appearing pro se; consequently, the court liberally
construes the Complaint. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551
U.S. 89, 94 (2007); Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d
1132, 1137 (9th Cir. 1987) (per curiam). The court also
recognizes that “[u]nless it is absolutely clear that
no amendment can cure the defect . . . a pro se litigant is
entitled to notice of the complaint's deficiencies and an
opportunity to amend prior to dismissal of the action.”
Lucas v. Dep't of Corr., 66 F.3d 245, 248 (9th
Cir. 1995); see also Crowley v. Bannister, 734 F.3d
967, 977-78 (9th Cir. 2013).
Application of ...