United States District CourtFor the Northern District of California1
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
27
28
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
)
RICKARD DENNIS ANDERSON, )
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
MARIA WONG,
)
)
Defendant.
)
)
No. C 05-2451 SBA (pr)
ORDER OF
DISMISSAL
Plaintiff Rickard Dennis Anderson, a state prisoner and frequent litigant in federal court, filed the
above-referenced "complaint" filled with nonsensical phrases with no clear relationship to each other.
Section 1915A requires a federal court to engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners
seek redress from a governmental entity or officer, or employee of a governmental entity. See 28
U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The section applies even if the prisoner has not been granted leave to proceed in
forma pauperis. See Rowe v. Shake, 196 F.3d 778, 781 (7th Cir. 1999) (joining Second, Fifth, Sixth
and Tenth Circuits in holding that § 1915A applies even when prisoner pays full fee at outset). In its
review the court must identify any cognizable claims, and dismiss any claims which are frivolous,
malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek monetary relief from a
defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2).
Nowhere does Plaintiff assert identifiable causes of action or make coherent factual allegations
that could give rise to a valid cause of action. In addition, Plaintiff has filed well over one hundred
complaints in this Court since 2003, all of which have been unintelligible. The Court finds that Plaintiff's
complaints are numerous and frivolous. It is difficult to ascertain from Plaintiff's complaints who he is
seeking relief from or what relief he is seeking. These filings serve no reasonable litigation purpose, and
they impose an unreasonable burden on the Court and its staff. Furthermore, based on Plaintiff's past
history of failing to respond to this Court's orders to amend unintelligible complaints,