(PS)Sn v. Mata ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SHARMILA SN, No. 2:22-cv-01788 KJM AC PS 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 ADRIAN MATA, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was referred to the undersigned 18 by E.D. Cal. R. 302(c)(21). Plaintiff has filed a request for leave to proceed in forma 19 pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, and has submitted the affidavit required by that 20 statute. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). The motion to proceed IFP will therefore be granted. Along 21 with the complaint, plaintiff filed an ex parte motion to be instated as the Transitional Governor 22 of California until December of 2030. ECF No. 3. 23 I. SCREENING 24 A determination that a plaintiff qualifies financially for in forma pauperis status does not 25 complete the inquiry required by the statute. The federal IFP statute requires federal courts to 26 dismiss a case if the action is legally “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which 27 relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Plaintiff must assist the court in determining whether or not the 1 complaint is frivolous, by drafting the complaint so that it complies with the Federal Rules of 2 Civil Procedure (“Fed. R. Civ. P.”). Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the complaint 3 must contain (1) a “short and plain statement” of the basis for federal jurisdiction (that is, the 4 reason the case is filed in this court, rather than in a state court), (2) a short and plain statement 5 showing that plaintiff is entitled to relief (that is, who harmed the plaintiff, and in what way), and 6 (3) a demand for the relief sought. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Plaintiff’s claims must be set forth 7 simply, concisely and directly. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1). 8 A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 9 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the 10 court will (1) accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in the complaint, unless they 11 are clearly baseless or fanciful, (2) construe those allegations in the light most favorable to the 12 plaintiff, and (3) resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor. See Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327; Von 13 Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art at Pasadena, 592 F.3d 954, 960 (9th Cir. 2010), cert. 14 denied, 564 U.S. 1037 (2011). 15 The court applies the same rules of construction in determining whether the complaint 16 states a claim on which relief can be granted. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (court 17 must accept the allegations as true); Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974) (court must 18 construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff). Pro se pleadings are held to a 19 less stringent standard than those drafted by lawyers. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 20 (1972). However, the court need not accept as true conclusory allegations, unreasonable 21 inferences, or unwarranted deductions of fact. Western Mining Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d 618, 22 624 (9th Cir. 1981). A formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action does not suffice 23 to state a claim. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-57 (2007); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 24 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). To state a claim on which relief may be granted, the plaintiff must 25 allege enough facts “to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 26 570. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the 27 court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” 28 Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. 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 Plaintiff alleges that they moved to California on August 8th. Plaintiff asks for an order 7 installing them as the Transitional Governor of the State and allowing them to move into the 8 Governor’s Mansion. ECF No. 1 at 2. Plaintiff sues the Governor’s Director of Constitutional 9 Affairs, Adrian Mata. Id. Plaintiff asserts jurisdiction based on federal question, and when asked 10 to list the basis for federal question jurisdiction writes “The U.S. Constitution.” Id. at 4. The 11 handwriting on the remainder of the Complaint is difficult to decipher, but from what the Court 12 can read, plaintiff alleges President Joe Biden passed a law regarding marijuana per the U.S. 13 Constitution impacting this case. Id. at 5. 14 Plaintiff’s ex-parte motion (ECF No. 3) sheds some light on plaintiff’s claims. In this 15 motion, plaintiff asks the court to take judicial action to install plaintiff as California Transition 16 Governor from May 3, 2022 through December 2030 per the U.S. Constitution and legal changes 17 with respect to marijuana policy and other laws. ECF No. 3 at 1. In this document, plaintiff 18 indicates that defendant Mata told plaintiff that plaintiff needed an executive order from the 19 President indicating that plaintiff has been elected as the Governor of California. Id. at 5-6. 20 Plaintiff sent a letter to President Biden asking for an executive order instating plaintiff as 21 governor with a salary of $210,000, but plaintiff did not receive a response. Id. at 6. Plaintiff 22 describes engaging in various efforts to obtain the executive order, including calling the White 23 House, going to the FBI in Sacramento, requesting help from the Attorney General’s office, and 24 even flying to Washington, D.C. Id. Plaintiff went to the Sacramento Superior Civil Court for 25 assistance and was told this was a Federal Court matter. Id. at 7. 26 III. ANALYSIS 27 The complaint does not contain facts supporting any cognizable legal claim against any 28 defendant. The court finds that the complaint consists entirely of fanciful and delusional 1 | allegations with no plausible basis in law and no plausible supporting facts. See ECF No. 1. The 2 || court has no authority to issue an executive order or install plaintiff as the Governor of California. 3 || The contents of the complaint are sufficiently fanciful and unintelligible to make it clear that 4 || leave to amend in this case would not be fruitful. The undersigned will therefore recommend that 5 || the complaint be dismissed with prejudice. The ex parte motion will be denied for the same 6 || reasons. 7 ITV. PROSE PLAITNIFF’S SUMMARY 8 Your case does not state a federal legal claim and cannot proceed. The federal court has 9 || no authority to issue an executive order or make you the Governor of the State of California. 10 || Your ex parte motion is denied, and it is recommended that this case be dismissed with prejudice. 1] V. CONCLUSION 12 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs application to 13 || proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2), is GRANTED, and that plaintiffs ex parte motion (ECF 14 || No. 3) is DENIED. 15 Further, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that all claims against all defendants should 16 || be DISMISSED with prejudice. 17 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 18 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within twenty-one days 19 | after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 20 || with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings 21 || and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified 22 || time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 23 |) (9th Cir. 1991). 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 || DATED: October 11, 2022 ~ 2% Ahan —Chone ALLISON CLAIRE 27 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 28