(PS) Liang v. Anderson ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KUANGHUEI LIANG, et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-00596-TLN-JDP (PS) 12 Plaintiffs, SCREENING ORDER 13 v. ECF No. 1 14 JOYCELYN ANDERSON, ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 15 Defendant. ECF Nos. 2, 3, 4 16 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 17 THAT THIS CASE BE DISMISSED 18 OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN 14 DAYS 19 ORDER 20 Plaintiffs move to proceed without prepayment of filing fees. ECF Nos. 2, 3, 4. 21 Plaintiffs’ affidavits satisfy the requirements to proceed without prepayment of fees. See 28 22 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Thus, the motions, ECF Nos. 2, 3, 4, are granted. 23 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 24 Having granted plaintiffs’ motions to proceed in forma pauperis, this complaint is now 25 subject to screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The court must dismiss any action filed in forma 26 pauperis that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or 27 seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from suit. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 28 1 Plaintiffs bring this case as an attempt to have criminal charges brought against a neighbor 2 | because of past disputes. ECF No. 1. Plaintiffs have had substantially similar lawsuits dismissed 3 | both as patently frivolous and for lack of jurisdiction. See, e.g., Liang v. Anderson, 2:21-cv- 4 | 00557-JAM-AC, Findings and Recommendations at ECF No. 5 (April 2, 2021) (recommending 5 | dismissal of plaintiffs’ case as frivolous because citizens cannot bring criminal charges), adopted 6 | May 21, 2021; Liang v. Anderson, 2:21-cv-00594-JAM-KJN, Findings and Recommendations at 7 | ECF No.5 (May 4, 2021) (same), adopted June 2, 2021; Liang v. Anderson, 2:20-cv-01990-JAM- 8 | DB, Findings and Recommendations at ECF No. 3 (March 29, 2021) (recommending dismissal 9 | without leave to amend for lack of jurisdiction), adopted June 29, 2021. Duplicative lawsuits 10 | filed by a plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis are subject to dismissal as either frivolous or 11 | malicious under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). See, e.g., Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 n.2 12 | (9th Cir. 1995). This case is duplicative of those cases and equally frivolous because plaintiff 13 || cannot bring criminal charges. 14 Accordingly, it is recommended that plaintiff's case be dismissed with prejudice as 15 | frivolous. 16 I submit these findings and recommendations to the district judge under 28 U.S.C. 17 | § 636(b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, 18 | Eastern District of California. Plaintiffs may, within 14 days of the service of the findings and 19 | recommendations, file written objections to the findings and recommendations with the court. 20 | Such objections should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 21 | Recommendations.” The district judge will review the findings and recommendations under 28 22 | U.S.C. § 636(b)1)(C). 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ October 31, 2021 Q_-——_ 26 JEREMY D. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28