The opinion of the court was delivered by: Dennis L. Beck United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM WITH LEAVE TO AMEND ECF No. 1 RESPONSE DUE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS
Plaintiff Dion Anderson ("Plaintiff") is a prisoner in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR"). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On August 13, 2012, Plaintiff filed his complaint. ECF No. 1.
The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally "frivolous or malicious," that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). "Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action or appeal . . . fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted." Id. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
A complaint must contain "a short and plain statement of the claim
showing that the pleader
is entitled to relief . . . ." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed
factual allegations are not required, but
"[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported
by mere conclusory statements, 4 do not suffice." Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 5
U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Plaintiff must set forth "sufficient factual
matter, accepted as true, to 'state a 6 claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.'" Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). While
factual 7 allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not.
II. Summary of Complaint 9
Plaintiff was previously incarcerated at Corcoran State Prison. Plaintiff names as Defendants Governor Edmund G. Brown, the California State Legislature; California Secretary of State Debra Bowen; California State Controller John Chiang; State Attorney General Kamala D. Harris; and the California Superior Courts.
Plaintiff alleges the following.*fn1 On September 7, 2010, Plaintiff wrote a letter to the United States Department of Justice concerning "substantial amounts of dollars" appropriated from prisoners' convictions. Pl.'s Compl. 3. Plaintiff was informed that he should contact the appropriate local or state agency. Compl. 3. On April 25, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion in the Sacramento Superior Court. Compl. 5. Plaintiff was informed that he would need to submit a petition or complaint to proceed in court. Compl. 5. On July 17, 2011, Plaintiff then filed a motion in Sacramento Superior Court for reclassification, submitting his felony criminal case number. Compl. 6. On August 17, 2011, the court rejected the filing and informed Plaintiff he must follow proper procedures if he wished to initiate a new civil case. Compl. 7.
On July 20, 2011, Plaintiff filed his complaint with a writ of possession, and was informed to resubmit with only the first documents. Compl. 8. After complying, Plaintiff received a response from the court which stated that Plaintiff's filings were unclear and that he must have a case number before he can submit a proof of service. Compl. 9. Plaintiff construed the court's response as denial of access to the courts. Compl. 9. On September 20, 2011, the court stated that without some type of payment, it could not process Plaintiff's complaint. Compl. 9.
Plaintiff contends a civil forfeiture of property, breach of contract/warranty, subrogation, constructive trust, resulting trust, racketeering, and requests an injunction pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 78aa, 18 U.S.C. §§ 981(a)(1)(A), 983(a)(3), and 1961; 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1367, 2283, and 2465, 4 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65.*fn2
Plaintiff spends an extensive portion of his Complaint contending that
he should be the class
representative for an alleged class action suit. However, Plaintiff
cannot bring this suit as a class 9 action. Plaintiff is proceeding
pro se and lacks authority to appear as an attorney for anyone other
than himself. See C.E. Pope Equity Trust v. United States, 818 F.2d
696, 697 (9th Cir. 1987) (holding that "non-attorney may appear in
propria persona in his own behalf" only). Thus, the Court will
consider only Plaintiff's individual claims. Plaintiff is warned that
he may not ...