Gilbert A. Torres v. Lopez ( 2024 )

1 2 JS-6 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GILBERT A. TORRES, Case No. 2:23-cv-07141-FWS-AGR 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT 13 WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND v. 14 D. AVALOS, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 19 I. 20 BACKGROUND 21 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a 22 document entitled “Injunction Relief Motion.” (Dkt. No. 1.) The court denied the 23 24 request for injunctive relief. (Dkt. No. 4.) 25 Subsequently, Plaintiff filed a series of three documents: a “motion to file” 26 (Dkt. No. 8), a “memo: relief order (Dkt. No. 9), and a “memo” (Dkt. No. 10). 27 28 1 The court has screened the four documents (Dkt. Nos. 1, 8, 9, 10) to 2 determine whether the action is frivolous or fails to state a claim on which relief 3 may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The court’s screening is governed 4 5 by the following standards: 6 To survive dismissal, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, 7 accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft 8 v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citation omitted). “A claim has facial 9 10 plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw 11 the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. 12 The plausibility standard is not akin to a ‘probability requirement,’ but it asks for 13 more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Id. (citations 14 15 omitted). 16 A pro se complaint is to be liberally construed. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 17 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam). Before dismissing a pro se civil rights complaint 18 for failure to state a claim, the plaintiff should be given a statement of the 19 20 complaint’s deficiencies and an opportunity to cure them unless it is clear the 21 deficiencies cannot be cured by amendment. Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 22 1135-36 (9th Cir. 1987). Nevertheless, “[under Ninth Circuit case law, district 23 courts are only required to grant leave to amend if a complaint can possibly be 24 25 saved. Courts are not required to grant leave to amend if a complaint lacks merit 26 entirely.” Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 27 28 1 II. 2 DISCUSSION 3 A court may dismiss a case at any time if the court determines that the 4 5 action is frivolous or fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted. 28 6 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). As stated in the Order Denying Request for Injunctive 7 Relief, the allegations in the “Injunction Relief Motion” were “indecipherable and 8 vague,” and failed to satisfy the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. (Dkt. No. 4 at 9 10 3.) The court was “unable to discern what civil rights cause(s) of action Plaintiff 11 seeks to assert therein despite carefully reviewing the Motion.” (Id.) 12 Plaintiff’s subsequently filed documents provide no clarification. Plaintiff 13 alternately refers to himself as royalty, a doctor, or a special agent of the CIA, FBI 14 15 or DOJ under different names. (Dkt. No. 10 at 1, 6; Dkt. No. 9 at 1, 3; Dkt. No. 8 16 at 2.) Plaintiff elsewhere claims to be “undercover,” possibly for the State 17 Department. Plaintiff claims to have “won injunctive relief” to be moved to the 18 “Sureno active yard” but the CDCR keeps him in a sensitive needs yard (“SNY”). 19 20 (Dkt. No. 9 at 1.) Plaintiff also claims to have been given a presidential pardon 21 but has been kept hostage or falsely imprisoned. (Dkt. No. 8 at 1.) 22 The court finds Plaintiff’s claims are plainly frivolous and unintelligible. See 23 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989) (“complaint . . . is frivolous where it 24 25 lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact”). To the extent Plaintiff seeks any 26 relief, he apparently seeks release from prison. (Dkt. No. 8 at 2.) As this court 27 explained in the Order Denying Request for Injunctive Relief, a request for 28 1 | release from prison is addressed through a petition for writ of habeas corpus, not a civil rights action. (Order, Dkt. No. 3); Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 81-82 3 2005). 4 | (2005) 5 Based on the record, the court concludes that Plaintiff cannot formulate a 6 | plausible claim for relief and leave to amend would be futile. See Cervantes v. 7 Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (leave to 8 9 amend may be denied when amendment would be futile). 10 ORDER 11 For the reasons discussed above, the court DISMISSES the above- V2 captioned case without leave to amend. 13 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. ° LS /—m 16 DATED: March 29, 2024 17 Hon. Fred W. Slaughter 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28