(PC) Miles v. Laursen ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GEORGIA MILES, No. 2:23-cv-0663 KJM AC P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 PHILLIPA LAURSEN, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a county prisoner1 proceeding pro se with this civil action and seeks leave to 18 proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 19 I. Procedural History 20 By findings and recommendations filed July 25, 2023, the undersigned recommended that 21 this action be dismissed based on plaintiff’s failure to file an application to proceed in forma 22 pauperis. ECF No. 15. Plaintiff proceeded to file an application, but it was not accompanied by a 23 certified trust account statement. ECF No. 16. Plaintiff was then ordered to provide the required 24 statement. ECF No. 19. On October 2, 2023, the assigned district judge declined to adopt the 25 findings and recommendations and found that although the findings and recommendations were 26 1 Although plaintiff was temporarily housed at the Napa County State Hospital (ECF No. 14) she 27 was incarcerated at the Sutter County Jail at the time she filed the complaint (ECF No. 1) and, as of her most recent notice of change of address (ECF No. 22), has been returned to the jail’s 28 custody. 1 supported at the time they issued, there were sufficient grounds to provide plaintiff one final 2 opportunity to submit a completed application to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 21. She 3 was given thirty-one days to do so. Id. Plaintiff has responded to the order saying she submitted 4 paperwork from the state hospital. ECF No. 23. Review of the previously submitted application 5 to proceed in forma pauperis shows that while plaintiff did not submit a trust account statement, 6 she did have staff at the state hospital complete a certification showing she had no money in her 7 account and that her average monthly balance for the past six months as $0. ECF No. 16 at 2. 8 II. Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 9 Plaintiff has moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 2. “A district court 10 may deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis at the outset if it appears from the face of the 11 proposed complaint that the action is frivolous or without merit.” Tripati v. First Nat’l Bank & 12 Tr., 821 F.2d 1368, 1370 (9th Cir. 1987). For the reasons set forth below, the undersigned finds 13 this action to be frivolous and will recommend that plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma 14 pauperis be denied on that basis. 15 III. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints 16 The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against “a 17 governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). 18 The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are 19 “frivolous, malicious, or fail[] to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,” or that “seek[] 20 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). 21 A claim “is [legally] frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” 22 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th 23 Cir. 1984). “[A] judge may dismiss . . . claims which are ‘based on indisputably meritless legal 24 theories’ or whose ‘factual contentions are clearly baseless.’” Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 25 640 (9th Cir. 1989) (quoting Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327), superseded by statute on other grounds as 26 stated in Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000). The critical inquiry is whether a 27 constitutional claim, however inartfully pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. 28 Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227-28 (citations omitted). 1 “Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only ‘a short and plain statement of the 2 claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,’ in order to ‘give the defendant fair notice of 3 what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 4 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (alteration in original) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). 5 “Failure to state a claim under § 1915A incorporates the familiar standard applied in the context 6 of failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).” Wilhelm v. Rotman, 7 680 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted). In order to survive dismissal for failure 8 to state a claim, a complaint must contain more than “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a 9 cause of action;” it must contain factual allegations sufficient “to raise a right to relief above the 10 speculative level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citations omitted). “‘[T]he pleading must contain 11 something more . . . than . . . a statement of facts that merely creates a suspicion [of] a legally 12 cognizable right of action.’” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting 5 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur 13 R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1216 (3d ed. 2004)). 14 “[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to 15 relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting 16 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual 17 content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 18 misconduct alleged.” Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). In reviewing a complaint under this 19 standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in question, Hosp. Bldg. 20 Co. v. Trs. of the Rex Hosp., 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976) (citation omitted), as well as construe the 21 pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor, 22 Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969) (citations omitted). 23 IV. Allegations 24 Plaintiff has filed an original and first amended complaint. ECF Nos. 1, 7. The original 25 complaint names over thirty individuals and entities as defendants. ECF No. 1 at 1-3. Review of 26 the complaint shows that it fails to make any specific allegations against any individual and is 27 largely unintelligible. Id. at 5-7. Plaintiff appears to allege that her son, daughter, and 28 grandchildren were kidnapped, held hostage, used as bait, drugged, raped, enslaved, and tortured 1 by “police, cops, judges, lawyers & building & church officials in the same style of Charles 2 Manson cults.” Id. She also appears to allege that she has been subject to similar treatment in 3 addition to being brought up on false charges and being the victim of theft, vandalism, stalking, 4 and brainwashing. Id. at 6-7. 5 The first amended complaint alleges that plaintiff is being held on false charges and has 6 been subject to “kidnapping, stalking, forgery, hacking, trafficking, hate crimes, hostage, torture.” 7 ECF No. 7 at 1. She also alleges that her public defender, defendant Laursen, is a known drug 8 addict whose son was taken away at a young age and that Laursen had plaintiff’s son, daughter, 9 and granddaughter kidnapped and that Laursen’s son drugged them. Id. at 1-2. 10 Neither the original nor the first amended complaint present plausible factual allegations 11 or legally coherent theories of liability establishing a claim for relief. See Denton v. Hernandez, 12 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992) (“[A] court may dismiss a claim as factually frivolous only if the facts 13 alleged are ‘clearly baseless,’ a category encompassing allegations that are ‘fanciful,’ ‘fantastic,’ 14 and ‘delusional.’ As those words suggest, a finding of factual frivolousness is appropriate when 15 the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible.” (internal citations 16 omitted)). 17 V. No Leave to Amend 18 Leave to amend should be granted if it appears possible that the defects in the complaint 19 could be corrected, especially if a plaintiff is pro se. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 20 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). However, if, after careful consideration, it is clear that a complaint 21 cannot be cured by amendment, the court may dismiss without leave to amend. Cato v. United 22 States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105-06 (9th Cir. 1995). 23 The undersigned finds that, as set forth above, both the original and first amended 24 complaints fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The contents of the complaints 25 are sufficiently fantastical that it is clear that leave to amend would not result in a cognizable 26 claim. As a result, leave to amend would be futile and the first amended complaint should be 27 dismissed without leave to amend. 28 //// 1 VI. Plain Language Summary of this Order for a Pro Se Litigant 2 It is being recommended that your complaint be dismissed without leave to amend 3 || because your allegations do not state any claims for relief and it does not appear the problems can 4 | be fixed. 5 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 6 1. Plaintiffs request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 16) be DENIED. 7 2. The first amended complaint be dismissed without leave to amend for failure to state a 8 | claim. 9 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 10 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).. Within twenty-one days 11 | after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 12 || with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judges Findings 13 || and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified 14 || time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 15 | (9th Cir. 1991). 16 | DATED: November 7, 2023 * 17 Htttenr— Lhor—e_ ALLISON CLAIRE 18 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28