United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
ALLISON CLAIRE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
is proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was referred
to the undersigned in by E.D. Cal. R. 302(c)(21). Plaintiff
has filed a request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis
(“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, and
has submitted the affidavit required by that statute.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). The motion to
proceed IFP will therefore be granted.
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 complaint presents no specific legal claim but
alleges that plaintiff and plaintiff's family are
“being maliciously harassed by the United States of
America - FBI and CIA.” ECF No. 1 at 5. Plaintiff
details the harassment as follows: tampering with their
vehicles (shattering a window in a car wash, nails in the
tires, no air conditioning, a broken handle, failure to
start, a vehicle burglary, license plates stolen);
plaintiff's brother being over-charged by the Sacramento
Housing Authority, being billed close to $26, 000 by Social
Security for stopping disability benefits, his mail being
withheld, and an unidentified individual fraudulently posing
as a lawyer/advocate for plaintiff's brother's
housing situation; the incarceration of plaintiff's
mother without habeas corpus protection; breaking up
plaintiff's family; withholding incoming and outcoming
calls; surveillance; theft at plaintiff's family's
homes; and discrimination against plaintiff's family at
their places of employment. Id. at 7 and 8.
complaint does not contain facts supporting any cognizable
legal claim against any defendant. The court finds that the
complaint consists entirely of fanciful and delusional
allegations with no basis in law and no plausible supporting
facts. See ECF No. 1. The contents of the complaint
make clear that any attempt at amendment would be futile and
no plausible claim exists. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678;
Noll, 809 F.2d 1446. The undersigned will therefore
recommend that the complaint be dismissed with prejudice. The
undersigned further recommends that all motions filed by
plaintiff in this case, including a motion for habeas corpus
on behalf of plaintiff's mother (ECF No. 3) and a motion
for summary judgment (ECF No. 5), be denied as moot, and that
this case be closed.
accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that
Plaintiff s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No.
2), is GRANTED.
IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that all claims against all
defendants should be DISMISSED with prejudice, and all
pending motions, including ECF Nos. 3 and 5, ...