United States District Court, E.D. California
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
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).
ECF No. 2. The motion to proceed IFP will therefore be
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).
Plaintiff must assist the court in determining whether or not
the complaint is frivolous, 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
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.
8(a). Plaintiff's claims must be set forth simply,
concisely and directly. Fed.R.Civ.P. 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; 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).
court applies the same rules of construction in determining
whether the complaint states a claim on which relief can be
granted. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007)
(court must accept the allegations as true); Scheuer v.
Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974) (court must construe
the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff).
Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than
those drafted by lawyers. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S.
519, 520 (1972). However, the court need not accept as true
conclusory allegations, unreasonable inferences, or
unwarranted deductions of fact. Western Mining Council v.
Watt, 643 F.2d 618, 624 (9th Cir. 1981). A formulaic
recitation of the elements of a cause of action does not
suffice to state a claim. Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-57 (2007); Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
state a claim on which relief may be granted, the plaintiff
must allege enough facts “to state a claim to relief
that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550
U.S. at 570. “A claim has facial plausibility when the
plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to
draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable
for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S.
at 678. 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. 1987).
brings suit under several sections of the federal criminal
code (18 U.S.C. § 351, 18 U.S.C. § 1113, 18 U.S.C.
§ 371, and 18 U.S.C. § 241) against defendant
Donald Trump. ECF No. 1 at 1. Plaintiff's complaint is
largely incoherent. From what the court can comprehend,
plaintiff alleges that when she tried to make copies at the
Federal Courthouse in Sacramento, California, a court
employee refused to make a copy for her and refused to
provide change for a dollar bill. ECF No. 1 at 2. Plaintiff
alleges that she does not understand English and was harassed
by an “S.S. employee” in an elevator.
Id. Plaintiff states she does not understand why
“S.S. employee able to speak English in face 76 years
old white lady with distance.” Id. Plaintiff
asserts that as she was leaving the federal building an
“S.S.” followed her and pulled the right hand of
her care provider and said “I put on floor.”
Id. Her care provider requested the evaluation of
the governmental employee's alleged assault against him.
seemingly unconnected claims, plaintiff references a past
lawsuit she filed against former President Obama for stopping
her “IHSS” (which the court interprets to stand
for In Home Support Services) payments to her care provider.
ECF No. 1 at 3. Plaintiff mentions that her social security
payments have stopped. Id. at 4. Plaintiff alleges
that defendant Trump ordered an attack on her while she was
at a Costco. Id. Plaintiff alleges that defendant
Trump paid cash to gang members from Russia in the USA and
that she lost 20 kilograms between September 2015 and May
2016 due to the neglect of government employees. Id.
The remainder of plaintiff's handwritten complaint is
complaint before the court includes no cognizable claims, and
contains no factual allegations suggesting the existence of
any cognizable claim. The undersigned therefore recommends
dismissal without leave to amend.
plaintiff brings only claims that are based on federal
criminal law. ECF No. 1 at 1. A citizen does not have
authority to bring criminal charges, and cannot bring a civil
suit for damages under the criminal code. “Criminal
proceedings, unlike private civil proceedings, are public
acts initiated and controlled by the Executive Branch.”
Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 718 (1997).
Plaintiff cannot bring the federal ...