United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
F. BRENNAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to
28 U.S.C. 1915. Her declaration makes the showing required
by 28 U.S.C. §1915(a)(1) and (2). See ECF No.
2. Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma
pauperis is granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).
that plaintiff may proceed in forma pauperis does
not complete the required inquiry. Pursuant to §
1915(e)(2), the court must dismiss the case at any time if it
determines the allegation of poverty is untrue, or if the
action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on
which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against
an immune defendant. As discussed below, plaintiff's
complaint must be dismissed for failure to state a claim.
pro se pleadings are liberally construed, see Haines v.
Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972), a complaint, or
portion thereof, should be dismissed for failure to state a
claim if it fails to set forth “enough facts to state a
claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554,
562-563 (2007) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41
(1957)); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
“[A] plaintiff's obligation to provide the
‘grounds' of his ‘entitlement to relief'
requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic
recitation of a cause of action's elements will not do.
Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief
above the speculative level on the assumption that all of the
complaint's allegations are true.” Id.
(citations omitted). Dismissal is appropriate based either on
the lack of cognizable legal theories or the lack of pleading
sufficient facts to support cognizable legal theories.
Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d
696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).
this standard, the court must accept as true the allegations
of the complaint in question, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex
Hosp. Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), construe the
pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and
resolve all doubts in the plaintiff's favor, Jenkins
v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). A pro se
plaintiff must satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule 8(a)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a)(2)
requires a complaint to include “a short and plain
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled
to relief, in order to give the defendant fair notice of what
the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.”
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citing Conley v.
Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957)).
alleges that defendant Hillary Clinton “committed
crimes against health, life, [sic] personal property under 18
U.S.C. § 371.” ECF No. 1 at 2. Plaintiff also
claims she has sent mail to defendant, who refused to
respond. Id. She further alleges defendant has
failed to comply with federal and international law requiring
her “to protect disabled people and refugees on
territory U.S.A.” Id. Plaintiff also alleges
that defendant has “received cash income in Great
Britain since 1990.” Id. Based on these
allegations, plaintiff seeks nine trillion dollars in
allegations are insufficient to support a claim upon which
relief could be granted. As a threshold matter, 18 U.S.C.
§ 371 is a criminal statute that does not provide a
private right of action. See, e.g., Newman v. Caliber
Home Loans, Inc., 2018 WL 3361442, * 1 (S.D. Cal. July
10, 2018); Ou-Young v. Vasquez, 2013 WL 2558101, *5
(N.D. Cal. June 10, 2013); Rockefeller v. U.S. Court of
Appeals Office for Tenth Circuit Judges, 248 F.Supp. 2d.
17, 23 (D.D.C. 2003). Furthermore, leave to amend to state a
plausible claim would be futile. Plaintiffs allegations are
fanciful and frivolous, and could not plausibly support a
claim against Hillary Clinton, the only named defendant.
Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992)
(“[A] finding of factual frivolousness is appropriate
when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or
the wholly incredible . . . .”). Therefore, it is
recommended that plaintiffs complaint be dismissed without
leave to amend. See Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446,
1448 (9th Cir. 1987) (while the court ordinarily would permit
a pro se plaintiff to amend, leave to amend should not be
granted where it appears amendment would be futile);
California Architectural Bldg. Prod. v. Franciscan
Ceramics, 818 F.2d 1466, 1472 (9th Cir. 1988)
(“Valid reasons for denying leave to amend include
undue delay, bad faith, prejudice, and futility”).
IT IS ORDERED that plaintiffs request for leave to proceed
in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is granted.
it is RECOMMENDED that plaintiffs complaint be dismissed
without leave to amend, and the Clerk be directed to close
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 fourteen
days after being served with these findings and
recommendations, any party may file written objections with
the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document
should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate
Judge's Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to
file objections within the specified time may waive the right
to appeal the District Court's order. Turner v.
Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez
v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
 This case, in which plaintiff is
proceeding in propria persona, was referred to the
undersigned under Local Rule 302(c)(21). See 28