(PC) Iseli v. State of CA ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BRANDEN WILLIE ISELI, No. 2:22-cv-02171-CKD P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 18 action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This proceeding was referred to this court pursuant to 19 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rule 302. 20 Plaintiff requests leave to proceed in forma pauperis. As plaintiff has submitted a 21 declaration that makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), his request will be granted. 22 Plaintiff is required to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. 28 U.S.C. §§ 23 1914(a), 1915(b)(1). By separate order, the court will direct the appropriate agency to collect the 24 initial partial filing fee from plaintiff’s trust account and forward it to the Clerk of the Court. 25 Thereafter, plaintiff will be obligated for monthly payments of twenty percent of the preceding 26 month’s income credited to plaintiff’s prison trust account. These payments will be forwarded by 27 the appropriate agency to the Clerk of the Court each time the amount in plaintiff’s account 28 exceeds $10.00, until the filing fee is paid in full. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). 1 I. Screening Standard 2 The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 3 governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The 4 court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally 5 “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek 6 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). 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); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th 9 Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an 10 indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 11 490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully 12 pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th 13 Cir. 1989); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227. 14 In order to avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more than 15 “naked assertions,” “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause 16 of action.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-557 (2007). In other words, 17 “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory 18 statements do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Furthermore, a claim 19 upon which the court can grant relief has facial plausibility. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A 20 claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw 21 the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. 22 at 678. When considering whether a complaint states a claim upon which relief can be granted, 23 the court must accept the allegations as true, Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93-94 (2007), and 24 construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, see Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 25 U.S. 232, 236 (1974). 26 II. Allegations in the Complaint 27 In a six page complaint, plaintiff appears to sue the State of California, the City of 28 Stockton, and the homeowner of a property located in Stockton. As best as the court can 1 understand, claim one is based on an injury to plaintiff’s thumb caused from falling on City of 2 Stockton property in 2013 or 2014. ECF No. 1 at 3. In a confusing second claim for relief, 3 plaintiff mentions a house fire that occurred in December 2016 at a specific address in Stockton, 4 California. Other than property damage that was sustained, the court is unable to discern any 5 claim for relief based on the facts pertaining to the fire. In his third claim, plaintiff merely 6 provides the case number of his pending habeas corpus challenge to his state criminal conviction. 7 See Iseli v. People of the State of California, No. 2:22-cv-01483-TLN-EFB (E.D. Cal.). 8 By way of relief, plaintiff seeks “the max for all of the above and back pay and to file for 9 incomeitancy [sic], pain and suffering,… disability and unemployment as well….” ECF No. 1 at 10 6. 11 III. Analysis 12 The court has reviewed plaintiff’s complaint and finds that it fails to state a claim upon 13 which relief can be granted under federal law. To the extent that plaintiff names the State of 14 California as a defendant, the Eleventh Amendment bars suits brought by private parties against a 15 state or state agency unless the state or the agency consents to such suit. See Quern v. Jordan, 16 440 U.S. 332 (1979); Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781 (1978) (per curiam); Jackson v. Hayakawa, 17 682 F.2d 1344, 1349-50 (9th Cir. 1982). In the instant case, the State of California has not 18 consented to suit. Accordingly, any putative claims against the State of California are barred by 19 the Eleventh Amendment. At most, the first claim for relief suggests a state law negligence claim 20 against the City of Stockton based on plaintiff’s thumb injury. However, this court only has 21 supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims once a federal claim is properly alleged. See 28 22 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (stating that district courts “may decline to exercise supplemental 23 jurisdiction… if… all claims over which it has original jurisdiction” have been dismissed). In 24 this case, plaintiff’s complaint states no cognizable federal claim for relief. Plaintiff’s second 25 claim for relief is against a private homeowner. However, the federal statute under which 26 plaintiff filed suit only provides a cause of action against persons acting under color of state law. 27 See 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff does not assert that the homeowner was a state actor. Thus, any 28 claim against this defendant fails. For all these reasons, the undersigned recommends dismissing 1 plaintiff’s complaint for failing to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. 2 § 1915A(b)(1). 3 Once the court finds that a complaint or claim should be dismissed for failure to state a 4 claim, the court has discretion to dismiss with or without leave to amend. Leave to amend should 5 be granted if it appears possible that the defects in the complaint could be corrected, especially if 6 a plaintiff is pro se. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc); Cato v. 7 United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995) (“A pro se litigant must be given leave to 8 amend his or her complaint, and some notice of its deficiencies, unless it is absolutely clear that 9 the deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by amendment.” (citation omitted). 10 However, if, after careful consideration, it is clear that a claim cannot be cured by amendment, 11 the court may dismiss without leave to amend. Cato, 70 F.3d at 1105-06. 12 In this case, it appears to the court that leave to amend would be futile because the 13 deficiencies cannot be cured. The only proper defendant in this action is the City of Stockton and 14 the only facts suggest that plaintiff is complaining about a potential state law claim of negligence 15 over which this court does not have jurisdiction. Therefore, the undersigned recommends that the 16 complaint be dismissed without leave to amend. Klamath-Lake Pharm. Ass’n v. Klamath Med. 17 Serv. Bureau, 701 F.2d 1276, 1293 (9th Cir. 1983) (holding that while leave to amend shall be 18 freely given, the court does not have to allow futile amendments). 19 IV. Plain Language Summary for Pro Se Party 20 The following information is meant to explain this order in plain English and is not 21 intended as legal advice. 22 The court has reviewed your complaint and determined that it does not state any claim for 23 relief against any defendant. It is recommended that your complaint be dismissed without leave 24 to amend because there is no federal claim that you could raise based on the facts alleged in your 25 complaint. 26 If you disagree with this recommendation, you have 14 days to explain why it is not the 27 correct outcome in your case. Label your explanation “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings 28 and Recommendations.” The district judge assigned your case will then review the case and 1 || make the final decision in this matter. 2 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 3 1. Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is granted. 4 2. The Clerk of Court randomly assign this matter to a district court judge. 5 IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that plaintiff's complaint be dismissed without leave 6 || to amend for failing to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 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)(1). Within fourteen days 9 || after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 10 || objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 11 | “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 12 || objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 13 || parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 14 || appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 15 | Dated: February 24, 2023 / ae □□ / a Ly a 16 CAROLYN K DELANEY 17 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 |} 12/isel2172.F&R.docx 24 25 26 27 28