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)).
complaint consists of fanciful and disjointed allegations
that fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
For instance, plaintiff alleges that the President Donald
Trump and the United States government have “committed
crimes against life, health, [and] personal property”
in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 241. ECF No. 1 at 2. In that
regard, President Trump allegedly directed government
officials to steal numerous letters from plaintiff's
“post box inside United Nations building in New York
before and after April 2017.” Id. The
complaint further alleges that President Trump stopped
payments of plaintiff's Supplemental Security Income
benefits and made cash payments to “USA citizens in
Zurich and Geneva in Swiss hotels.” Id.
Plaintiff also alleges that defendant Vice President Mike
Pence supports crimes “of cash economy in USA.”
Id. at 3. She also alleges that she was
“removed from HUD property in Sacramento without”
a court hearing in order to cause her “fatal damage
nerves insulin resistant.” Id.
only claim plaintiff asserts is for violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 241, which is a criminal statute that does not provide
a private right of action. See Allen v. Gold Country
Casino, 464 F.3d 1044, 1048 (9th Cir.2006) (affirming
the dismissal claims under 18 U.S.C. § 241 because it is
a “criminal statute that do not give rise to civil
liability”). Furthermore, plaintiffs allegations are
fanciful and frivolous, and could not plausibly support a
claim against for relief. 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
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