Ari v. Houston

Background

Roxanne Atka Ari, identified as a state prisoner, filed a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without a lawyer. The court had granted her permission to proceed without paying the filing fee.

Screening standard

Because Ari sought relief as a prisoner from governmental defendants, the court conducted the preliminary review required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. That law requires the court to identify claims that can proceed and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek money from a defendant who is legally immune from that relief. The court also explained that self-represented complaints are read liberally, but they still must include enough factual allegations to make a claim plausible.

To state a claim under Section 1983, a plaintiff must allege that a right under the Constitution or federal law was violated and that the violation was committed by someone acting under state authority.

Court’s analysis

The court said Ari’s allegations were difficult to discern. As described by the court, she alleged that people stole her property through forgery in 1973, that she was illegally prosecuted and imprisoned, that she was forcibly medicated, and that there was an illegal conspiracy to overthrow the government.

The court concluded that Ari’s allegations were frivolous and failed to state a claim. It further concluded that no amendment could cure the complaint’s deficiencies. The court stated that, if Ari sought to raise claims about medical care or other treatment at her prison, she should file a case in the Central District of California, where she was incarcerated.

Disposition

Judge James Donato ordered that the action be DISMISSED without leave to amend for failure to state a claim and as frivolous. The court also DENIED Ari’s motions at Docket Nos. 3 and 4 and directed the clerk to close the case.