United States District Court, E.D. California
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 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).
ECF No. 2. The motion to proceed IFP will therefore be
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). .
brings suit against San Juaquin Child Protective Services for
violations the First Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment.
ECF No. 1 at 2. Plaintiff alleges that in 2017 her case was
transferred to San Joaquin County and at this time she
informed social worker Sue Winslow that her child needed
therapy, but it took a year to get that service. Id.
at 3. Plaintiff alleges the “case plan” included
therapy for her and her daughter to do together, and that was
the only thing not done in the case. Id. Plaintiff
demands that her daughter receive $1, 000, 000, that her own
name removed from “Allcentral Index, ” and that
the social workers be investigated for “indictment for
case plan setup to fail, falsified court reporting.”
Id. at 4.
further alleges as follows. Sue Winslow should not have put
in a court report that plaintiff used her church for
transportation. Id. at 5. Sue Winslow and Allison
Ellis of the Department of Child Protective Services would
not serve plaintiff or give her court reports, in violation
of plaintiff's due process rights. Id. at 6.
Allison Ellis reported that plaintiff's child was
physically endangered, even after plaintiff gave her
information that the police had dropped charges connected
with the case. Id. at 7. Finally, Sue Winslow
withheld the complete case plan and kept saying that
plaintiff did not finish parenting class, when in fact
plaintiff was pulled out of one class but did finish another.
Id. at 8.
complaint must be rejected because the facts alleged do not
state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Plaintiff's constitutional claims, brought pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983, are predicated on facts that do not
amount to a constitutional deprivation. In order to proceed
pursuant to § 1983, plaintiff must plead and prove that
she was deprived of a right within the coverage of the
statute; the facts must show that the injury suffered
infringed a right guaranteed by federal law or the federal
Constitution. Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137, 142,
(1979); Shah v. County of Los Angeles, 797 F.2d 743,
746 (9th Cir.1986). Plaintiff's factual allegations do
not support a constitutional deprivation under the First or
Fourteenth Amendment, or any other federally protected right
of which the court is aware.
Plaintiff Does Not State a ...