Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Miner v. United States

United States District Court, E.D. California

August 28, 2019

MADIHA MINER, Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, FBI, and CIA, Defendants.

          ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

          ALLISON CLAIRE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Plaintiff 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.

         I. SCREENING

         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).

         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). 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).

         The 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.

         A pro 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 banc).

         II. THE COMPLAINT

         The 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.

         III. ANALYSIS

         The 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.

         V. CONCLUSION

         In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2), is GRANTED.

         Further, 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, ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.