United States District Court, E.D. California
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
ALLISON CLAIRE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
is proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was
accordingly referred to the undersigned by E.D. Cal.
302(c)(21). Plaintiff has previously been granted leave to
proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). See
28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), ECF No. 5.
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.”). The Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure are available online at
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). Forms are
available to help pro se plaintiffs organize their complaint
in the proper way. They are available at the Clerk's
Office, 501 I Street, 4th Floor (Rm. 4-200), Sacramento, CA
95814, or online at
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).
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).
Procedural History and Complaint
initially filed a 221-page complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983, but the complaint was entirely incomprehensible.
ECF No. 1. The language used in the compliant and the vast
multitude of muddled facts made it impossible for the court
to summarize the contents. ECF No. 5 at 3. The complaint
contained many attachments, including documents from various
prior court proceedings and written notes from the plaintiff.
Id. The court rejected the complaint because it did
not contain a “short and plain” statement setting
forth the basis for federal jurisdiction, plaintiff's
entitlement to relief, or the relief that is sought, even
though those things are required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(1) (3).
The court granted plaintiff leave to file an amended
complaint within 30 days. Id. at 5. The court
instructed plaintiff that the amended complaint could be no
longer than 25 pages.
before the court's order granting leave to amend was
placed on the docket, plaintiff filed a first amended §
1983 complaint (“FAC”). ECF No. 4. The FAC
alleges that plaintiff is being recklessly prosecuted by
cruel and “false intents” and inhumane driven
hatred. Id. at 3. Though the exact allegations are
difficult to decipher, plaintiff makes reference to an
arresting officer Deputy Teri Cissna. Id. a 4. In
the same paragraph, plaintiff mentions a “replacement
roommate” who, after selling his $2, 000, 000 family
home, was coming to replace a “drunker roommate,
” which allegedly led to a false police report by
Cissna. Id. Plaintiff states his claims occurred at
El Dorado County Jail, where he was placed in 6 months
“solitaire conditions.” Id. Plaintiff
also references “artisan tools of the trade”
which were lost by a judicial order that caused them to be
placed in a public storage facility. Id. Plaintiff
states that he seeks $150, 000, 000 for the loss of life,
liberty and artistic profits. Id. at 5.
the court evaluated the FAC, plaintiff filed another amended
§ 1983 complaint on September 8, 2019, which the court
construes as a second amended complaint (“SAC”).
ECF No. 6. Like the initial complaint, the SAC is again 221
pages, and entirely incomprehensible. Id. The court
is unable to summarize plaintiff's SAC because of the
language used and the multitude of muddled facts presented.
the FAC has not yet been screened, the court will address
both the FAC and SAC, though the SAC supersedes. The FAC does
not state a claim pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), and
therefore cannot be served. Though it is more concise than
the first and third-filed complaints, it still presents
disconnected statements that do not support any identifiable
legal claim. For example, when asked on the form complaint
what constitutional or statutory rights have been violated,
plaintiff states “The Constitutional rights of a brain
injured handicapped person, being recklessly prosecuted by
cruel, false intents of inhumane driven hatred. The
Constitutional ignorance of kindness by fellow men.”
ECF No. 4 at 3. Plaintiff indicates that he will supply the
exact “placements of the code reference” when he
figures out how to graciously process it, and states that it
exists in the “relative biblical structures of
humanity.” Id. The only allegation in the FAC
that remotely resembles a fact that could support a legal
claim is plaintiff's reference to Officer Cissna making a
false police report, but that fact is stated without any
comprehensible context. Id. at 4. Plaintiff's
FAC does not identify any ...