(PS) Fuller v. United States Government ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ADAM FULLER, No. 2:19-cv-1655 JAM DB PS 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 UNITED STATE GOVERNMENT, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff Adam Fuller is proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was referred to the 18 undersigned in accordance with Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Pending 19 before the court are plaintiff’s complaint and motion to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 20 U.S.C. § 1915. (ECF Nos. 1 & 2.) Therein, plaintiff complains about blood harvesting. (Compl. 21 (ECF No. 1) at 5.) 22 The court is required to screen complaints brought by parties proceeding in forma 23 pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); see also Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 24 2000) (en banc). Here, plaintiff’s complaint is deficient. Accordingly, for the reasons stated 25 below, the undersigned will recommend that plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed without leave to 26 amend. 27 //// 28 //// 1 I. Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 2 Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis application makes the financial showing required by 28 3 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). However, a determination that a plaintiff qualifies financially for in forma 4 pauperis status does not complete the inquiry required by the statute. “‘A district court may deny 5 leave to proceed in forma pauperis at the outset if it appears from the face of the proposed 6 complaint that the action is frivolous or without merit.’” Minetti v. Port of Seattle, 152 F.3d 7 1113, 1115 (9th Cir. 1998) (quoting Tripati v. First Nat. Bank & Trust, 821 F.2d 1368, 1370 (9th 8 Cir. 1987)); see also McGee v. Department of Child Support Services, 584 Fed. Appx. 638 (9th 9 Cir. 2014) (“the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying McGee’s request to proceed 10 IFP because it appears from the face of the amended complaint that McGee’s action is frivolous 11 or without merit”); Smart v. Heinze, 347 F.2d 114, 116 (9th Cir. 1965) (“It is the duty of the 12 District Court to examine any application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis to determine 13 whether the proposed proceeding has merit and if it appears that the proceeding is without merit, 14 the court is bound to deny a motion seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis.”). 15 Moreover, the court must dismiss an in forma pauperis case at any time if the allegation of 16 poverty is found to be untrue or if it is determined that the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to 17 state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against an immune 18 defendant. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). A complaint is legally frivolous when it lacks an 19 arguable basis in law or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. 20 Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th Cir. 1984). Under this standard, a court must dismiss a 21 complaint as frivolous where it is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory or where the 22 factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). 23 To state a claim on which relief may be granted, the plaintiff must allege “enough facts to 24 state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 25 570 (2007). In considering whether a complaint states a cognizable claim, the court accepts as 26 true the material allegations in the complaint and construes the allegations in the light most 27 favorable to the plaintiff. Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984); Hosp. Bldg. Co. v. 28 Trustees of Rex Hosp., 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976); Love v. United States, 915 F.2d 1242, 1245 1 (9th Cir. 1989). Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by 2 lawyers. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). However, the court need not accept as true 3 conclusory allegations, unreasonable inferences, or unwarranted deductions of fact. Western 4 Mining Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d 618, 624 (9th Cir. 1981). 5 The minimum requirements for a civil complaint in federal court are as follows: 6 A pleading which sets forth a claim for relief . . . shall contain (1) a short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the court’s 7 jurisdiction depends . . . , (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and (3) a demand for 8 judgment for the relief the pleader seeks. 9 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). 10 II. Plaintiff’s Complaint 11 “[T]he in forma pauperis statute . . . ‘accords judges not only the authority to dismiss a 12 claim based on an indisputably meritless legal theory, but also the unusual power to pierce the 13 veil of the complaint’s factual allegations and dismiss those claims whose factual contentions are 14 clearly baseless.’” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32 (1992) (quoting Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 15 327). “Examples of the latter class are claims describing fantastic or delusional scenarios, claims 16 with which federal district judges are all too familiar.” Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 328. Here, the 17 complaint alleges that “the United States government designed the country to farm and harvest 18 [plaintiff’s] family’s blood to have atomic power[.]” (Compl. (ECF No. 1) at 5.) 19 In this regard, not only does the complaint fail to state a claim, but the complaint’s 20 allegations are also delusional and frivolous. See Denton, 504 U.S. at 33 (“a finding of factual 21 frivolousness is appropriate when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly 22 incredible, whether or not there are judicially noticeable facts available to contradict them”). 23 III. Leave to Amend 24 For the reasons stated above, plaintiff’s complaint should be dismissed. The undersigned 25 has carefully considered whether plaintiff may amend the complaint to state a claim upon which 26 relief can be granted. “Valid reasons for denying leave to amend include undue delay, bad faith, 27 prejudice, and futility.” California Architectural Bldg. Prod. v. Franciscan Ceramics, 818 F.2d 28 1466, 1472 (9th Cir. 1988); see also Klamath-Lake Pharm. Ass’n v. Klamath Med. Serv. Bureau, 1 701 F.2d 1276, 1293 (9th Cir. 1983) (holding that while leave to amend shall be freely given, the 2 court does not have to allow futile amendments). 3 Here, given the defects noted above, the undersigned finds that granting plaintiff leave to 4 amend would be futile. 5 CONCLUSION 6 Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 7 1. Plaintiff’s August 26, 2019 application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) be 8 denied; 9 2. Plaintiff’s August 26, 2019 complaint (ECF No. 1) be dismissed without prejudice; and 10 3. This action be dismissed. 11 These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 12 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within thirty (30) days 13 after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 14 with the court. A document containing objections should be titled “Objections to Magistrate 15 Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within 16 the specified time may, under certain circumstances, waive the right to appeal the District Court’s 17 order. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 18 DATED: March 24, 2020 /s/ DEBORAH BARNES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 19 20 21 22 DLB:6 23 DB/orders/orders.pro se/fuller1655.dism.f&rs 24 25 26 27 28