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
United States District CourtFor the Northern District of CaliforniaIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
LEONARD ROSS,
Plaintiff,
v.
SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL HOSPITAL,
Defendant.
/
No. C 06-05601 CRB
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Now before the Court is plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”).
A court may authorize a plaintiff to prosecute an action in federal court without prepayment
of fees or security if the plaintiff submits an affidavit showing that he or she is unable to pay
such fees or give security therefor. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Plaintiff has submitted the
required documentation, and it is evident from his application that his assets and income are
insufficient to enable plaintiff to prosecute the action.
Viewing plaintiff’s application in isolation, it appears that she should be allowed to
proceed IFP. A court is under a continuing duty, however, to dismiss a case whenever it
determines that the action “(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which
relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from
such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-- (iii).
//
Case 3:06-cv-05601-CRB Document 7 Filed 09/25/2006 Page 1 of 2
Ross v. San Francisco General Hospital
Doc. 7
Dockets.Justia.com
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
2
G:\CRBALL\2006\5601\orderdismissingcase.wpd
Plaintiff’s complaint, filed just two days after his unpleasant experience, fails to state
a claim against the San Francisco General Hospital. If plaintiff’s allegations are true,
plaintiff has good cause to be upset by how he was treated by Hospital staff on September 11
of this year. The Hospital’s ch