CHARLES R. BREYER, United States District Judge.
Now before the Court is plaintiff Charles Caston's application to proceed without having to pay the filing fee or the costs of service of process. 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 for the fees. 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 he should be allowed to proceed without having to pay the filing fees. A court is under a continuing duty, however, to dismiss a case filed without payment of fees whenever the complaint "fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Accordingly, the Court must evaluate whether plaintiff's complaint states a claim.
Although the complaint is signed only by plaintiff Charles Caston, it purports to be brought on behalf of 12 individuals. Three of these individuals are identified only by first name. Only Mr. Caston is specifically identified in the complaint.
The complaint names a host of individuals and several government organizations as defendants. Again, most of these defendants are not specifically identified in the complaint. For those defendants that are specifically identified, the allegations are either facially absurd or devoid of sufficient detail to state a claim for relief. For example, the complaint states that "Bill Clinton is guilty of theft of legal documents and slander of plaintiff's family name." The plaintiff also alleges that San Francisco Municipal Railroad is "guilty of attacking" disabled customers. The complaint does not state when, where, or how such attacks occurred. Plaintiffs seek "$1,999 Billion Dollars."
The complaint is insufficient in several respects. First, it does not identify how plaintiff Charles Caston has a claim; in other words, what was his involvement with the incidents. The complaint only alleges personal involvement in one claim: "Bill Clinton is guilty of theft of legal documents and slander of plaintiff's family name." This portion of the complaint must be dismissed because it is "clearly baseless" and frivolous. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32 (1992); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
Second, it does not identify how any of the other named plaintiffs were involved in any of the incidents.
Third, it does not identify when, where, or how any of the alleged illegal actions took place.
Moreover, while plaintiff may represent himself to the extent he has a claim, he may not represent the other plaintiffs. See Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 n. 1 (9th Cir. 1995). The claims of the other plaintiffs must therefore be dismissed. See id.
Accordingly, because plaintiff's complaint does not state a claim, his complaint must be DISMISSED. The dismissal is without prejudice to plaintiff filing a complaint on his own behalf in which he provides sufficient detail regarding alleged illegal actions to state a claim for relief. These specifics should include his specific involvement in the incidents upon which his complaint is based, the date or dates of the incidents, and how each named defendant was involved in the incidents.
On March 5, 2002, this Court issued an order granting plaintiff's petition to proceed in forma pauperis and directing the United States Marshal to serve defendants. That order is hereby VACATED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
JUDGMENT
Having dismissed this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), judgment is hereby entered in favor of defendants and against plaintiff, Charles Caston.
IT IS SO ORDERED.