(PS) Legardy v. State of California ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 FLETCHER SHERMAN LEGARDY, No. 2:22-cv-01881 KJM AC PS 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. ORDER and 13 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 Defendants. 15 16 Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se. The matter was accordingly referred to the 17 undersigned by E.D. Cal. 302(c)(21). Plaintiff has filed a request for leave to proceed in forma 18 pauperis (“IFP”) and has submitted the affidavit required by that statute. See 28 U.S.C. 19 § 1915(a)(1). The motion to proceed IFP will therefore be granted. 20 I. SCREENING 21 The federal IFP statute requires federal courts to dismiss a case if the action is legally 22 “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks 23 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 24 Plaintiff must assist the court in determining whether or not the complaint is frivolous, by drafting 25 the complaint so that it complies with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Fed. R. Civ. P.”). 26 Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the complaint must contain (1) a “short and 27 plain statement” of the basis for federal jurisdiction (that is, the reason the case is filed in this 28 court, rather than in a state court), (2) a short and plain statement showing that plaintiff is entitled 1 to relief (that is, who harmed the plaintiff, and in what way), and (3) a demand for the relief 2 sought. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Plaintiff’s claims must be set forth simply, concisely and directly. 3 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1). 4 A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 5 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the 6 court will (1) accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in the complaint, unless they 7 are clearly baseless or fanciful, (2) construe those allegations in the light most favorable to the 8 plaintiff, and (3) resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor. See Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327; Von 9 Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art at Pasadena, 592 F.3d 954, 960 (9th Cir. 2010), cert. 10 denied, 564 U.S. 1037 (2011). 11 The court applies the same rules of construction in determining whether the complaint 12 states a claim on which relief can be granted. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (court 13 must accept the allegations as true); Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974) (court must 14 construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff). Pro se pleadings are held to a 15 less stringent standard than those drafted by lawyers. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 16 (1972). However, the court need not accept as true conclusory allegations, unreasonable 17 inferences, or unwarranted deductions of fact. Western Mining Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d 618, 18 624 (9th Cir. 1981). A formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action does not suffice 19 to state a claim. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-57 (2007); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 20 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). 21 To state a claim on which relief may be granted, the plaintiff must allege enough facts “to 22 state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A claim has 23 facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the 24 reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 25 678. A pro se litigant is entitled to notice of the deficiencies in the complaint and an opportunity 26 to amend, unless the complaint’s deficiencies could not be cured by amendment. See Noll v. 27 Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987), superseded on other grounds by statute as stated in 28 Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir.2000) (en banc). 1 II. THE COMPLAINT 2 Plaintiff sues the State of California, the County of Sacramento, the City of Sacramento, 3 and the Sacramento Kings basketball team for “unconstitutional excessive taxes, right to property 4 (the taxes are paid).” ECF No. 1 at 3, 4. Plaintiff alleges “property businesses and money none 5 have been taken by the defendants.” Id. at 6. Plaintiff asks for one trillion dollars in damages. 6 Id. at 7. Plaintiff attaches several pages to his complaint that are difficult to decipher and are 7 seemingly disconnected. On one page he mentions fire retardant and states he spent 3 million 8 dollars in relation to a “helicopter hawk drone plant.” Id. at 8. He also attaches a letter directed 9 to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection that appears to request property 10 upgrades on Mather Air Force Base. Id. at 9. A few pages later, plaintiff attaches a letter stating 11 that for 35 years, he has been contacting Congresswoman Doris Matsui requesting that the Senate 12 finance committee pay for requested projects. Id. at 13. He then attaches a letter to President Joe 13 Biden about a robbery that occurred in 1976. Id. at 16. Finally, he attaches several pages of what 14 appear to be military personnel records. Id. at 17-20. 15 III. FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM 16 The complaint does not contain facts supporting any cognizable legal claim against any 17 defendant. The court finds that the complaint consists entirely of fanciful and delusional 18 allegations with no basis on law and no plausible supporting facts. See ECF No. 1. The contents 19 of the complaint are sufficiently unintelligible to make it clear that leave to amend in this case 20 would not be fruitful. The undersigned will therefore recommend that the complaint be dismissed 21 with prejudice. 22 IV. PRO SE PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY 23 Your case cannot proceed in federal court because it contains no legal basis for a lawsuit, 24 and there are not any facts that can support a legal claim. You are not being required to pay the 25 filing fee, but it is being recommended that your complaint be dismissed. You may object in 26 writing to this recommendation if you disagree. 27 //// 28 //// 1 V. CONCLUSION 2 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's 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. 6 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 7 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within twenty-one days 8 | after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 9 || with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings 10 || and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified 11 || time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 12 | (9th Cir. 1991). 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 | DATED: October 26, 2022 ~ 15 AMhun—Clorne ALLISON CLAIRE 16 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28