(PS) Epperson v. United States ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHRIS EPPERSON, No. 2:22-CV-0744-TLN-DMC 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 UNITED STATES, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, brings this civil action. Pending before the 18 court is Plaintiff’s complaint, ECF No. 1. 19 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by litigants who have been 20 granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Under this screening 21 provision, the Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if it: (1) is frivolous or 22 malicious; (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief 23 from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(A), (B). 24 Moreover, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3), the Court must dismiss an action 25 if it is determined that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Because Plaintiff has been granted 26 leave to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court will screen the complaint pursuant to § 1915(e)(2). 27 Pursuant to Rule 12(h)(3), the Court will also consider as a threshold matter whether it has 28 subject-matter jurisdiction. 1 I. PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS 2 Plaintiff names the United States, John F. Kennedy, Theodore Roosevelt, Ben 3 Franklin, and Benjamin Harrison as Defendants. See ECF No. 1, pgs. 1-3. In his complaint, 4 Plaintiff claims that Defendants “defrauded [the] State [of] Washington” and as relief sought, 5 states “[t]hey don’t even like you messing with their powers.” Id., pgs. 5-6. Plaintiff bases his 6 complaint on federal question, citing at issue the War National Defense, United States Bank, and 7 Chemical Weapons Convention. See id., pg. 4. 8 9 II. DISCUSSION 10 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement 11 of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief” in order to “give the defendant fair 12 notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp v. Twombly, 13 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citation omitted). However, in order to survive dismissal for failure to 14 state a claim, a complaint must contain factual allegations sufficient “to raise a right to relief 15 above the speculative level” and “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 16 face.” Id. at 555-56, 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.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Rule 8 “demands more than 19 an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Id. 20 A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 21 See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 22 (9th Cir. 1984). When applied to a complaint, the term “frivolous” embraces both the inarguable 23 legal conclusion and the fanciful factual allegation. See Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 325. The court 24 may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an indisputably meritless legal 25 theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Id. at 327. The court need not accept 26 the allegations in the complaint as true, but must determine whether they are fanciful, fantastic, or 27 delusional. See Denson v Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992) (quoting Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 328). 28 / / / ] Plaintiff's complaint must be dismissed as patently frivolous. Here, Plaintiff's 2 || complaint is unintelligible and contains no credible claim for relief. Plaintiffs allegations that 3 || Defendants — none of whom are currently alive — defrauded the State of Washington are fantastic, 4 | fanciful, and delusional. There is simply no arguable basis in law and fact for which relief can be 5 || granted. 6 7 Il. CONCLUSION 8 Based on the foregoing, as there appears to be no circumstances under which 9 | Plaintiff can plausibly state a claim, the undersigned recommends this action be dismissed with 10 || prejudice. 11 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 12 || Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).. Within 14 days 13 || after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections 14 | with the court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of objections. 15 || Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal. See Martinez v. 16 | Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 17 18 | Dated: October 18, 2022 Co 19 DENNIS M. COTA 20 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28