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 referred
to the undersigned by E.D. Cal. R. 302(c)(21). Plaintiff
previously filed a request for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915, which this court granted. ECF No. 3. On initial
screening pursuant to the IFP statute, the court dismissed
plaintiff's complaint with leave to amend. Id.
Before the court now is plaintiff's First Amended
Complaint (“FAC”). For the reasons explained
below, the undersigned finds the FAC does not state a claim
and that further leave to amend would be futile. The
undersigned therefore recommends dismissal of plaintiff's
case with prejudice.
discussed in the undersigned's prior order, a
determination that a plaintiff qualifies financially for in
forma pauperis status does not complete the inquiry required
by the statute. 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). 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.”).
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. 8(a). Plaintiff's claims must be set forth
simply, concisely and directly. Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(d)(1).
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). To 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.
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), superseded on other grounds by statute as stated in
Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir.2000) (en
putative FAC alleges that plaintiff was “wrongfully
arrested and held under 5150, 5250, and 5270 involuntarily in
Sierra Vista a lockdown mental institution from March
3rd 2015 to March 26th 2015, when she
was deemed no longer holdable and released to her own
custody.” ECF No. 1at 1. The remainder of her FAC is
largely unintelligible. Plaintiff recites a litany of federal
laws, professional policies (i.e. the Hippocratic Oath), and
company policies (i.e. Kaiser's treatment standards) that
defendant allegedly violated. Id. at 1-2. Plaintiff
asserts she is an experienced whistleblower and is entitled
to a whistleblower settlement. Id. Plaintiff does
not assert any facts to support a wrongful arrest claim.
Plaintiff attached to her FAC a large volume of documents
including, in part, medical records (Id. at 25-50),
a thank you card from her daughter (id. at 16), and
unsigned witness declarations attesting to the
plaintiff's personal attributes (id. at 18-24).
does not contain facts supporting any cognizable legal claim
against the defendant. The court finds that the FAC is
incoherent and consists largely of fanciful and delusional
allegations. Although plaintiff lists several federal laws in
her FAC, it is unclear from the document as a whole what
facts support any cause of action against the defendant. The
undersigned is unable to discern any basis for a federal
cause of action from the FAC. For these reasons, and because
plaintiff has demonstrated an inability to improve the
complaint by amendment even with guidance from the court, it
is apparent that further amendment would be futile. The
undersigned will therefore recommend that the FAC be
dismissed with prejudice.
accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that all
claims against defendant should be DISMISSED with prejudice.
findings and recommendations are submitted to the United
States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the
provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within twenty-one
days after being served with these findings and
recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with
the court. Such a document should be captioned
"Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and
Recommendations." Plaintiff is advised that failure to
file objections within the ...