United States District Court, E.D. California
RONALD J. CARROLL, Plaintiff,
BRANDON PRICE, et al., Defendants.
ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO FILE LODGED FIRST
AMENDED COMPLAINT (ECF NO. 8) ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT
TO RANDOMLY ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE TO ACTION FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS ACTION AS FRIVOLOUS FOURTEEN-DAY
BARBARA A. MCAULIFFE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Ronald J. Carroll (“Plaintiff”) is a civil
detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this
civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff
initiated this action on October 2, 2017. (ECF No. 1.) Before
the Court could screen Plaintiff's complaint pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), Plaintiff lodged a first amended
complaint on February 2, 2018. (ECF No. 8.)
stage in the proceedings, Plaintiff may amend his complaint
once as a matter of course. Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a). Therefore,
the Clerk of the Court shall be directed to file his first
amended complaint lodged on February 2, 2018. (ECF No. 8.) In
the interest of judicial economy, the Court now turns to
screening of the first amended complaint.
Screening Requirement and Standard
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 ... is
frivolous or malicious; [or] . . . fails state a claim upon
which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. §
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, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)).
While a plaintiff's allegations are taken as true, courts
“are not required to indulge unwarranted
inferences.” Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,
572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks
and citation omitted).
survive screening, Plaintiff's claims must be facially
plausible, which requires sufficient factual detail to allow
the Court to reasonably infer that each named defendant is
liable for the misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
at 678 (quotation marks omitted); Moss v. U.S. Secret
Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The sheer
possibility that a defendant acted unlawfully is not
sufficient, and mere consistency with liability falls short
of satisfying the plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556
U.S. at 678 (quotation marks omitted); Moss, 572
F.3d at 969.
first amended complaint, Plaintiff alleges as follows:
I have a comuper Chip Implanted and a wire battery pack in my
back. Implanted in me in 1976 in Bainbridge, Ga. After an
auto accident Mary Macodonie put an ether mask on my nose and
mouth. Placing me unconsious for 13 hours. Scars are stillon
back to prove operation. Back was never injuied. Control
Center Annonouncer Poisons my mind and body. And uses
Electricity to torture me. And uses me to control the weather
and mind control all over the world. . Everything is hook up
to my spinenal collum and brain, Charges against me were
falsified. By said Person . . . Judg, Felex, Bakersfield
court ordered A ultrasound in 2006. Never was Done.
(ECF No. 8 at 3) (unedited text).
relief, Plaintiff seeks an order for an ultrasound viewed by
witnesses and removal of the device (and wire and battery
pack) on film. Id.
pleading is “factual[ly] frivolous[ ]” when
“the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational
or the wholly incredible, whether or not there are judicially
noticeable facts available to contradict them.”
Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 25-26 (1992).
Section 1915 gives courts “the unusual power to pierce
the veil” of a complaint such as that filed by the
plaintiff and to “dismiss those claims whose factual
contentions are clearly baseless.” Neitzke v.
Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989). Clearly baseless
factual allegations include those ...