Singleton v. Justice System

1
3:25-cv-2748-CAB-JLB
1
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 COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
RAYMONDA SINGLETON,
Plaintiff,
v.
JUSTICE SYSTEM,
Defendant.
Case No.: 3:25-cv-2748-CAB-JLB
ORDER:
1) DISMISSING CIVIL ACTION AS
FRIVOLOUS AND FOR FAILING
TO STATE A CLAIM PURSUANT
TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), (ii);
AND
2) DENYING MOTION TO
PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
and MOTION TO SET A TRIAL
DATE AS MOOT [Doc. Nos. 2, 3]
Plaintiff Raymonda Singleton has filed this civil action against “the Justice System”
seemingly in relation to her various past cases, including in this District, that sought
compensation and relocation due to alleged injuries from “energy sources” in her apartment
complex. [Doc. No. 1 (“Complaint”) (referring to Case No. 3:21-cv-01594-CAB-LL, Case
No. 3:24-cv-2278-DMS-MSB, and 9th Circuit Appeal No. 21-56108).] 	Plaintiff did not
prepay the civil filing fees required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) at the time of filing; instead,
she has filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(a), [Doc. No. 2], and a Motion to Set a Trial Date within 120 Days. [Doc. No. 3.]
Case 3:25-cv-02748-CAB-JLB Document 5 Filed 03/02/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 4

2
3:25-cv-2748-CAB-JLB
1
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
For the reasons stated below, the Court DISMISSES the Complaint with prejudice and
DENIES the pending motions as moot.
I. 	SCREENING PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)
A complaint filed by any person seeking to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(a) is subject to sua sponte dismissal if it “is frivolous or malicious[,] fails to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted[,] or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who
is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845,
845 (9th Cir. 2001) (“[T]he provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) are not limited to
prisoners.”); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (“[S]ection
1915(e) not only permits but requires a district court to dismiss an in forma pauperis
complaint that fails to state a claim.”); see also Chavez v. Robinson, 817 F.3d 1162, 1167–
68 (9th Cir. 2016) (noting that § 1915(e)(2)(B) “mandates dismissal—even if dismissal
comes before the defendants are served”). 	Congress enacted this safeguard because “a
litigant whose filing fees and court costs are assumed by the public, unlike a paying litigant,
lacks an economic incentive to refrain from filing frivolous, malicious, or repetitive
lawsuits.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31 (1992) (quoting Neitzke v. Williams, 490
U.S. 319, 324 (1989)).
Complaints must also comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, which requires
that each pleading include a “short and plain statement of the claim,” FED. R. CIV. P.
8(a)(2), and that each allegation “be simple, concise, and direct.” FED . R. CIV . P. 8(d)(1);
see Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677–78 (2009). 	In addition to the grounds for sua
sponte dismissal set out in § 1915(e)(2)(B), the district court may also dismiss a complaint
for failure to comply with Rule 8 if it fails to provide the defendant fair notice of the wrongs
allegedly committed. 	See Cafasso, U.S. ex rel. v. Gen. Dynamics C4 Sys., Inc., 637 F.3d
1047, 1059 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing cases upholding Rule 8 dismissals where pleadings were
“verbose,” “confusing,” “distracting, ambiguous, and unintelligible,” “highly repetitious,”
and comprised of “incomprehensible rambling”).
Here, the Complaint fails to comply with Rule 8 and fails to state a claim upon which
Case 3:25-cv-02748-CAB-JLB Document 5 Filed 03/02/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 4

3
3:25-cv-2748-CAB-JLB
1
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
relief can be granted. 	Like Plaintiff’s previous complaints, this Complaint consists of
incoherent and rambling narrative alleging that “[t]he Justice System may and will and has
to be held liable for Environmental Community Injustices . . . due to the imminent danger
the Justice System has left me for DEAD[.]” [Complaint at 5.] But it remains unclear what
laws or rights Plaintiff claims were violated or infringed; the Complaint alludes to issues
ranging 	from 	“assault, 	attempted 	mannslaughter 	[sic] 	and 	attempted 	murder” 	to
“Environmental: Laws and Protection Agencies Vetoed.” 	[Id. at 14–15 (capitalization
removed).] Moreover, the reference to a monetary request is aimed at San Diego Gas and
Electric, not the judiciary. 	[Id. at 16.] 	The Complaint is therefore frivolous and fails to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted.1
Accordingly, even if Plaintiff is entitled to proceed IFP, the Complaint must be
dismissed. 	Anderson v. Sy, 486 Fed. Appx. 644 (9th Cir. 2012) (“The district court
properly 	dismissed 	[the 	lawsuit] 	as 	frivolous 	because 	the 	complaint 	contains
indecipherable facts and unsupported legal assertions.”); Adams v. FBI San Francisco
Field Off. Supervisor & Agents, No. 19-CV-02977-YGR (PR), 2019 WL 5626261, at *1
(N.D. Cal. Oct. 31, 2019) (“A claim that is totally incomprehensible may be dismissed as
frivolous as it is without an arguable basis in law.”). 	Moreover, “[w]hen a case may be
classified as frivolous or malicious, there is, by definition, no merit to the underlying action
and so no reason to grant leave to amend.” 	Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1128, n.8. 	This is
particularly true here, where Plaintiff has had at least prior two civil cases with similar
complaints dismissed, one of which Plaintiff appealed to the Ninth Circuit and the Ninth
Circuit dismissed as frivolous.
1 In addition, even if the Court generously interprets Plaintiff’s named defendant (“Justice System”) as
individual judges involved with Plaintiff’s previous cases, “[j]udges and those performing judge-like
functions are absolutely immune from damage liability for acts performed in their official capacities.”
Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072, 1075 (9th Cir. 1986); see also In re Castillo, 297 F.3d 940, 947 (9th
Cir. 2022).
Case 3:25-cv-02748-CAB-JLB Document 5 Filed 03/02/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 4

4
3:25-cv-2748-CAB-JLB
1
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
II. 	CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:
1. The Complaint is DISMISSED without leave to amend;
2. Plaintiff’s Motions to Proceed IFP, [Doc. No. 2], and Set a Trial Date, [Doc. No.
3], are DENIED AS MOOT;
3. The Court CERTIFIES that an IFP appeal from this order would be frivolous
and 	therefore 	would 	not 	be 	taken 	in 	good 	faith 	pursuant 	to 	28 	U.S.C.
§ 1915(a)(3); and
4. The Clerk of Court shall CLOSE this case.
It is SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 2, 2026
Case 3:25-cv-02748-CAB-JLB Document 5 Filed 03/02/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
4 of 4