Luc Van Nguyen v. S. Suprovici, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California grants the plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis. The court dismisses the complaint as frivolous under the prisoner-screening statutes, based on allegations it characterizes as delusional, but grants leave to amend within 30 days. The order also provides requirements for any amended complaint, including joinder, pleading, and defendant-identification rules.

Holdings

1. The complaint was frivolous because its claims were based on fanciful, delusional, or fantastic factual allegations lacking an arguable basis in fact.
2. The complaint was dismissed with leave to file an amended complaint within 30 days to attempt to cure the identified defects.
3. Any amended complaint must state facts rather than legal conclusions, avoid unrelated claims against different defendants, identify persons who personally participated in the alleged constitutional deprivation, include a proper caption, and be complete in itself.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the complaint was subject to dismissal during prisoner screening because its factual allegations were fanciful, delusional, or otherwise frivolous.
2. Whether plaintiff should receive leave to amend after dismissal.
3. What pleading, joinder, personal-participation, caption, and completeness requirements would govern any amended complaint.

Disposition

dismissed