(PS) Miner v. USA ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MADIHA MINER, No. 2:19-cv-01496 MCE AC PS 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, FBI, and CIA, 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was referred to the undersigned in 19 by E.D. Cal. R. 302(c)(21). Plaintiff has filed a request for leave to proceed in forma 20 pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, and has submitted the affidavit required by that 21 statute. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). The motion to proceed IFP will therefore be granted. 22 I. SCREENING 23 A determination that a plaintiff qualifies financially for in forma pauperis status does not 24 complete the inquiry required by the statute. The federal IFP statute requires federal courts to 25 dismiss a case if the action is legally “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which 26 relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 27 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Plaintiff must assist the court in determining whether or not the 28 complaint is frivolous, by drafting the complaint so that it complies with the Federal Rules of 1 Civil Procedure (“Fed. R. Civ. P.”). Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the complaint 2 must contain (1) a “short and plain statement” of the basis for federal jurisdiction (that is, the 3 reason the case is filed in this court, rather than in a state court), (2) a short and plain statement 4 showing that plaintiff is entitled to relief (that is, who harmed the plaintiff, and in what way), and 5 (3) a demand for the relief sought. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Plaintiff’s claims must be set forth 6 simply, concisely and directly. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1). 7 A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 8 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the 9 court will (1) accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in the complaint, unless they 10 are clearly baseless or fanciful, (2) construe those allegations in the light most favorable to the 11 plaintiff, and (3) resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor. See Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327; Von 12 Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art at Pasadena, 592 F.3d 954, 960 (9th Cir. 2010), cert. 13 denied, 564 U.S. 1037 (2011). 14 The court applies the same rules of construction in determining whether the complaint 15 states a claim on which relief can be granted. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (court 16 must accept the allegations as true); Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974) (court must 17 construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff). Pro se pleadings are held to a 18 less stringent standard than those drafted by lawyers. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 19 (1972). However, the court need not accept as true conclusory allegations, unreasonable 20 inferences, or unwarranted deductions of fact. Western Mining Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d 618, 21 624 (9th Cir. 1981). A formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action does not suffice 22 to state a claim. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-57 (2007); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 23 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). To state a claim on which relief may be granted, the plaintiff must 24 allege enough facts “to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 25 570. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the 26 court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” 27 Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. 28 //// 1 A pro se litigant is entitled to notice of the deficiencies in the complaint and an 2 opportunity to amend, unless the complaint’s deficiencies could not be cured by amendment. See 3 Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987), superseded on other grounds by statute as 4 stated in Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir.2000)) (en banc). 5 II. THE COMPLAINT 6 The putative complaint presents no specific legal claim but alleges that plaintiff and 7 plaintiff’s family are “being maliciously harassed by the United States of America – FBI and 8 CIA.” ECF No. 1 at 5. Plaintiff details the harassment as follows: tampering with their vehicles 9 (shattering a window in a car wash, nails in the tires, no air conditioning, a broken handle, failure 10 to start, a vehicle burglary, license plates stolen); plaintiff’s brother being over-charged by the 11 Sacramento Housing Authority, being billed close to $26,000 by Social Security for stopping 12 disability benefits, his mail being withheld, and an unidentified individual fraudulently posing as 13 a lawyer/advocate for plaintiff’s brother’s housing situation; the incarceration of plaintiff’s 14 mother without habeas corpus protection; breaking up plaintiff’s family; withholding incoming 15 and outcoming calls; surveillance; theft at plaintiff’s family’s homes; and discrimination against 16 plaintiff’s family at their places of employment. Id. at 7 and 8. 17 III. ANALYSIS 18 The complaint does not contain facts supporting any cognizable legal claim against any 19 defendant. The court finds that the complaint consists entirely of fanciful and delusional 20 allegations with no basis in law and no plausible supporting facts. See ECF No. 1. The contents 21 of the complaint make clear that any attempt at amendment would be futile and no plausible 22 claim exists. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Noll, 809 F.2d 1446. The undersigned will therefore 23 recommend that the complaint be dismissed with prejudice. The undersigned further 24 recommends that all motions filed by plaintiff in this case, including a motion for habeas corpus 25 on behalf of plaintiff’s mother (ECF No. 3) and a motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 5), be 26 denied as moot, and that this case be closed. 27 //// 28 //// 1 V. CONCLUSION 2 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs application to 3 || proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2), is GRANTED. 4 Further, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that all claims against all defendants should 5 || be DISMISSED with prejudice, and all pending motions, including ECF Nos. 3 and 5, be 6 | dismissed as MOOT, and that this case be closed. 7 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 8 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(). Within twenty-one days 9 || after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 10 | with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings 11 || and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified 12 || time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 13 | (9th Cir. 1991). 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 | DATED: August 28, 2019 ~ 16 Chtten— Lhane ALLISON CLAIRE 17 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28