United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
ALLISON CLAIRE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
is a civil detainee at Napa State Hospital who filed this
civil rights action while detained in the Solano County
Stanton Correctional Facility. Plaintiff proceeds pro se with
a complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and a
request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. This action is referred to the
undersigned United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302(c). For the
following reasons, plaintiff's request to proceed in
forma pauperis is granted; however, the undersigned
recommends that this action be dismissed as frivolous,
without leave to amend.
In Forma Pauperis Application
has submitted an affidavit and prison trust account statement
that make the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).
See ECF No. 4. Accordingly, plaintiff's request
to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted.
Screening of Plaintiff's Complaint
Legal Standards for Screening Prisoner Civil Rights
court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners
seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer or
employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).
The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the
prisoner has raised claims that are legally “frivolous
or malicious, ” that fail to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a
defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §
1915A(b)(1), (2). A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks
an arguable basis either in law or in fact. Neitzke v.
Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v.
Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th Cir. 1984).
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “requires only
‘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.'” Bell
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)
(quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)).
“[T]he pleading standard Rule 8 announces does not
require ‘detailed factual allegations,' but it
demands more than an unadorned,
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting
Twombly at 555). To survive dismissal for failure to
state a claim, “a complaint must contain sufficient
factual matter, accepted as true, to “state a claim to
relief that is plausible on its face.'”
Iqbal at 678 (quoting Twombly 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. The plausibility standard is not akin to
a ‘probability requirement,' but it asks for more
than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted
unlawfully.” Id. (citing Twombly at
556). “Where a complaint pleads facts that are
‘merely consistent with' a defendant's
liability, it ‘stops short of the line between
possibility and plausibility of “entitlement to
relief.”'” Id. (quoting
Twombly at 557).
document filed pro se is ‘to be liberally
construed,' and ‘a pro se complaint, however
inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards
than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.'”
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (quoting
Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976) (internal
quotation marks omitted)). See also Fed.R.Civ.P.
8(e) (“Pleadings shall be so construed as to do
justice.”). Additionally, a pro se litigant is entitled
to notice of the deficiencies in the complaint and an
opportunity to amend, unless the complaint's deficiencies
cannot be cured by amendment. See Noll v. Carlson,
809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987).
rambling complaint seeks wide-ranging relief against more
than eighty (80) named defendants. Plaintiff alleges, inter
alia, that Vallejo City Police Officer Capote would not have
been killed if the Solano County Sheriff had relayed
plaintiff's timely warning to the police department. ECF
No. 1 at 8. Plaintiff alleges that numerous defendants
“are involved in federal and state criminal illegal
activities that range from tax evasion to first degree
murder, capital cases and murders, second degree murder,
including conspiracys [sic] to commit murder and or
conspiracy to inflict harm upon federal[ly] protected
petitioner by their attempt to render petitioner Warfield 
mentally incompetent and incapacitated.” Id.
at 9. Plaintiff alleges that defendants should be held to
answer to “other federal and state criminal charges
includ[ing] rape, statutory rape, sexual groping, child
molestation . . . possession of illegal firearms, and as well
narcotics traffiking on vessels utilized by illegal cartels
or illegal gang smuggling traffiking foreign or domestic
international or nationwide or weapons of mass destruction,
chemical warfare, etc.” [sic] Id. Plaintiff
seeks damages and “demands” the issuance of
“federal search warrants to any place of business
listed in defendants” [sic] and arrest warrants on
criminal charges “ranging through scope of sexual
misconduct which requires mandatory castration;”
plaintiff also requests that he be provided specific food
items (e.g., “more dry oatmeal”). Id. at
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure mandates that a
complaint include a “short and plain statement of the
claim, ” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2), and that each allegation
“be simple, concise, and direct.” Fed.R.Civ.P.
8(d)(1). A complaint that is so confusing that its “
‘true substance, if any, is well disguised' ”
may be dismissed for failure to satisfy Rule 8. Hearns v.
San Bernardino Police Dep't, 530 F.3d 1124, 1131
(9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Gillibeau v. City of
Richmond, 417 F.2d 426, 431 (9th Cir. 1969)).
Plaintiff's nearly incomprehensible complaint does not
comply with the standards of Rule 8.
the factual allegations of the complaint are fantastical.
“[A] court may dismiss a claim as factually frivolous
only if the facts alleged are ‘clearly baseless,' a
category encompassing allegations that are
‘fanciful,' ‘fantastic,' and
‘delusional.' As those words suggest, a finding of
factual frivolousness is appropriate when the facts alleged
rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly
incredible[.]” Denton v. ...