United States District Court, E.D. California
ALLISON CLAIRE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
is proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was
accordingly referred to the undersigned by E.D. Cal.
302(c)(21). Plaintiff has filed a request for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915, and has submitted the affidavit required
by that statute. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1).
The motion to proceed IFP will therefore be granted.
IFP status does not end the court's inquiry. The federal
IFP statute requires federal courts to dismiss a case if the
action is legally “frivolous or malicious, ”
fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or
seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from
such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
must assist the court in determining whether the complaint is
frivolous or not, by drafting the complaint so that it
complies with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
(“Fed. R. Civ. P.”). The Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure are available online at
Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the complaint
must contain (1) a “short and plain statement” of
the basis for federal jurisdiction (that is, the reason the
case is filed in this court, rather than in a state court),
(2) a short and plain statement showing that plaintiff is
entitled to relief (that is, who harmed the plaintiff, and in
what way), and (3) a demand for the relief sought.
Fed.R.Civ.P. (“Rule”) 8(a). Plaintiff's
claims must be set forth simply, concisely and directly. Rule
8(d)(1). Forms are available to help pro se plaintiffs
organize their complaint in the proper way. They are
available at the Clerk's Office, 501 I Street, 4th Floor
(Rm. 4-200), Sacramento, CA 95814, or online at
is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either
in law or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S.
319, 325 (1989). In reviewing a complaint under this
standard, the court will (1) accept as true all of the
factual allegations contained in the complaint, unless they
are clearly baseless or fanciful, (2) construe those
allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and
(3) resolve all doubts in the plaintiff's favor. See
Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327; Erickson v. Pardus,
551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007); Von Saher v. Norton Simon Museum
of Art at Pasadena, 592 F.3d 954, 960 (9th Cir. 2010),
cert. denied, 564 U.S. 1037 (2011); Hebbe v.
Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 340 (9th Cir. 2010). However, the
court need not accept as true, legal conclusions cast in the
form of factual allegations, or allegations that contradict
matters properly subject to judicial notice. See Western
Mining Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d 618, 624 (9th Cir.
1981); Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 266 F.3d
979, 988 (9th Cir.), as amended, 275 F.3d 1187
pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than those
drafted by lawyers. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519,
520 (1972). Pro se complaints are construed liberally and may
only be dismissed if it appears beyond doubt that the
plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim
which would entitle him to relief. Nordstrom v.
Ryan, 762 F.3d 903, 908 (9th Cir. 2014). A pro se
litigant is entitled to notice of the deficiencies in the
complaint and an opportunity to amend, unless the
complaint's deficiencies could not be cured by amendment.
See Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir.
complaint does not make any clear allegations against any
defendants. Under the “Statement of Claim”
section in the complaint form, she writes “(1) Identity
Theft (2) “manufacturing” fraudulent properties
(3) Money Laundering (4) Financial crimes funding terrorism,
harming the American people in a grave manner.” ECF No.
1 at 5. Under the “Relief” section, plaintiff
states that she is seeking criminal prosecution against all
parties involved, along with unspecified damages.
Id. at 6.
has failed to state a legal claim, and therefore her
complaint must be dismissed. In order to survive IFP
screening, the complaint must allege facts showing that
defendant engaged in some conduct that the law prohibits (or
failed to do something the law requires), and that in doing
so, defendant harmed plaintiff. Plaintiff has not met this
threshold. Additionally, to the extent plaintiff seeks
criminal prosecution against defendants, plaintiff is unable
to do so. There is no right of private prosecution in federal
court; a private individual cannot criminally prosecute, or
cause the government to criminally prosecute, another private
individual. Leeke v. Timmerman, 454 U.S. 83, 86-87
(1981), citing Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S.
614, 618-19 (1973).
has not alleged the violation of any particular law, or made
any particular allegation against any defendant. It is not
clear from the few factual allegations of the complaint
whether plaintiff could possibly state a claim that can be
heard in this court, and that would entitle her to relief.
Plaintiff will therefore be given an opportunity to amend her
AMENDING THE COMPLAINT
plaintiff chooses to amend his complaint, the amended
complaint must allege facts establishing the existence of
federal jurisdiction. In addition, it must contain a short
and plain statement of plaintiff's claims. The
allegations of the complaint must be set forth in
sequentially numbered paragraphs, with each paragraph number
being one greater than the one before, each paragraph having
its own number, and no paragraph number being repeated
anywhere in the complaint. Each paragraph should be limited
“to a single set of circumstances” where
possible. Rule 10(b). As noted above, forms are available to
help plaintiffs organize their ...