## Facts

- Elias Torres Ramirez, proceeding pro se, filed a federal civil action in the Northern District of California against Taylor Alison Swift and applied to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP).
- The court denied Ramirez’s initial IFP application because it did not include required financial information—specifically, information about his present bank account balance, cash, and other assets—and ordered him to file a complete amended IFP application or pay the filing fee by a set deadline.
- Instead of submitting a corrected IFP application or paying the filing fee, Ramirez filed a series of letters (multiple docket entries) that did not supply the missing financial information; in one letter, he stated he had an account but did not have further account information.
- Ramirez’s complaint and filings asserted unusual and wide-ranging allegations, including that:
  - A state court (described as “the Napa Court”) wrongfully imposed levies and that false charges followed.
  - People associated with “tiny homes in Santa Rosa” were making false claims against him.
  - A person identified as “Robert” committed copyright violations related to Ramirez’s “missing work.”
  - The Santa Clara Police Department and unknown individuals were keeping him separated from Ms. Swift.
  - He was entitled to government reward money connected to the capture of Osama bin Laden.
- In his IFP materials, Ramirez also claimed he was married to Ms. Swift, a claim the court treated as baseless.

## Issues

1. Whether the action should be dismissed because Ramirez failed to file a complete amended IFP application or pay the filing fee after being ordered to do so.
2. Whether the complaint should be dismissed with prejudice as frivolous because its factual allegations were “clearly baseless” (i.e., fanciful, fantastic, or delusional).

## Decision

- The magistrate judge ordered the case reassigned to a district judge.
- The magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation that the case be dismissed because Ramirez did not submit a complete amended IFP application and did not pay the filing fee as ordered.
- The magistrate judge further recommended dismissal with prejudice on an independent ground: even if the IFP defect were excused, the complaint’s factual allegations were plainly frivolous and could not be cured by amendment.

## Legal Principles

- A plaintiff seeking IFP status must provide the financial information required by the IFP application; failure to cure identified deficiencies or pay the filing fee after a court order can justify dismissal.
- Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, courts may dismiss IFP matters (or recommend dismissal at the screening stage) when allegations are frivolous.
- A claim is factually frivolous when the factual contentions are “clearly baseless,” including allegations that are “fanciful, fantastic, and delusional.” (Neitzke v. Williams; Denton v. Hernandez.)
- In assessing factual frivolousness, a court may look past the face of the complaint and reject allegations that rise to the level of the irrational or wholly incredible, even without resolving disputed facts.

## Conclusion

Ramirez v. Swift involved a pro se plaintiff who neither cured a deficient IFP application nor paid the filing fee after being ordered to do so, and whose filings alleged irrational claims—including marriage to Taylor Swift and entitlement to reward money tied to Osama bin Laden—leading the magistrate judge to recommend dismissal, including dismissal with prejudice because the allegations were factually frivolous.


Ramirez v. Swift, 2023 WL 7501391 (2023)