Ramirez v. Val
- Edward Chen
- 3:24-cv-02969
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Ramirez v. Val, Judge Chen recommended dismissal for failure to pay the filing fee and because the allegations were plainly frivolous.
Plaintiff Elias Torres Ramirez, whose case was reassigned and whose dismissal was recommended for failure to pay the filing fee and because the allegations were found plainly frivolous; the opinion identifies the defendants as Val, et al.
What happened
In Elias Torres Ramirez v. Val, et al., Ramirez did not complete his application to proceed without paying the filing fee. After the court denied his incomplete application without prejudice, it ordered him to submit an amended application or pay the fee. Ramirez did neither and also did not respond to the court’s later order to explain his failure.
The court also described the allegations as plainly frivolous. Ramirez alleged that Travis Kelce and others were interfering with his marriage to Taylor Swift, stated that he was married to Swift, and sought relief the court said was unavailable and illegal. The court noted that Ramirez had filed multiple cases with similar allegations.
Judge Edward Chen’s order reassigned the case to a district judge and recommended dismissing it for failure to pay the filing fee. It separately recommended dismissing the case with prejudice because the allegations were plainly frivolous. The opinion states that objections may be filed with the district judge within 14 days after service.
The detailed version
- Ramirez v. Val · No. 3:24-cv-02969
- Edward Chen
- Sept. 3, 2024
Background
Ramirez filed the case against Val and others and submitted an application to proceed without paying the filing fee. The court treated his second application as the operative application but denied it without prejudice because it was incomplete and the court could not determine whether he qualified for that status. The court ordered Ramirez to submit an amended application or pay the filing fee by June 21, 2024.
Ramirez did neither. The court then issued an order requiring him to respond and again either submit an amended application or pay the filing fee by August 2, 2024. The court warned that noncompliance could lead to reassignment to a district judge and a recommendation that the case be dismissed. The opinion states that Ramirez still had not responded, paid the fee, or filed an amended application.
Failure to prosecute and pay the filing fee
The court cited Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), which permits involuntary dismissal when a plaintiff fails to prosecute a case. It concluded that the case should be reassigned to a district judge and recommended dismissal for failure to pay the filing fee.
Frivolous allegations
The court separately recommended dismissal with prejudice because it found the factual allegations plainly frivolous. The opinion states that Ramirez alleged Travis Kelce and his co-defendants were interfering with his marriage to Taylor Swift, claimed that he was married to Swift, and sought relief that the court described as unavailable and illegal. Citing Supreme Court decisions, the court explained that a court may dismiss claims whose factual allegations are clearly baseless, including allegations that are fanciful, fantastic, delusional, irrational, or wholly incredible.
The court also noted that Ramirez had filed multiple cases with similar allegations, many of which had also been dismissed. The opinion lists those cases by party names and docket numbers.
Disposition
The court ordered that the case be reassigned to a district judge. It recommended dismissal for failure to pay the filing fee and separately recommended dismissal with prejudice because the factual allegations were plainly frivolous. The opinion states that a party may object to the report and recommendation within 14 days after being served with a copy. The provided opinion does not state that the district judge had entered a final dismissal.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.