Wiley v. State of California ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 JASON WESLEY WILEY, Case No. 22-cv-03153-WHO (PR) Plaintiff, 8 ORDER OF DISMISSAL v. 9 10 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Defendant. 11 12 13 Plaintiff John Wesley Wiley has filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, and a 14 complaint and an amended complaint in which he names the State of California as the sole 15 defendant. Both complaints contain non-actionable, frivolous and non-sensical allegations. 16 In the original complaint, Wiley alleges that the state court violated case management rules 17 regarding service. (Dkt. No. 1 at 3.) He also makes allegations regarding his military draft 18 number. (Id.) In his amended complaint, which is one page long, Wiley discusses child 19 custody matters in a highly disorganized fashion and asks for $200 trillion in damages 20 from the State of California. (Dkt. No. 41.) 21 In its review the court must identify any cognizable claims, and dismiss any claims 22 which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or 23 seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 24 1915A(b). Furthermore, provides that the court “shall” dismiss any case brought in forma 25 pauperis “if the court determines” that the allegation of poverty is untrue, or that the action 26 or appeal is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or 27 seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1 This federal civil rights action is DISMISSED because Wiley’s allegations are non- 2 sensical and frivolous. Furthermore, the State of California, the sole defendant, is immune 3 || from suit. The Eleventh Amendment of the Constitution “bars suits which seek either 4 || damages or injunctive relief against a state, an ‘arm of the state,’ its instrumentalities, or its 5 || agencies.” Franceschi v. Schwartz, 57 F.3d 828, 831 (9th Cir. 1995) (citation omitted). 6 Wiley has filed over 40 non-sensical motions, which the Court takes as further 7 || evidence of the action’s frivolousness. With the exception of his application to proceed in 8 || forma pauperis (Dkt. No. 2), all pending motions are DENIED. 9 This action is DISMISSED as frivolous. The Clerk shall terminate all pending 10 || motions with the exception of Dkt. No. 2. The Clerk shall enter judgment in favor of 11 defendant, and close the file. a 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: December 2, 2022 . 14 LLIAM H. ORRICK United States District Judge 16 Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28