(PC) Black v. Attorney General of California ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 SIVA D. BLACK, Case No. 2:21-cv-01094-TLN-JDP (PC) 11 Plaintiff, ORDER THAT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR JOINDER AND MOTION TO 12 v. APPEND BE DENIED 13 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ECF Nos. 49 & 61 CALIFORNIA, 14 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Defendant. THAT: 15 (1) PLAINTIFF’S THIRD AMENDED 16 COMPLAINT BE DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND FOR FAILURE TO 17 STATE A CLAIM; AND 18 (2) PLAINTIFF’S MISCELLANEOUS MOTIONS FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF BE 19 DENIED 20 ECF Nos. 42, 47, 54, 55, 53, & 58 21 FOURTEEN-DAY DEADLINE FOR OBJECTIONS 22 23 24 Plaintiff Siva D. Black proceeds on his third amended complaint. ECF No. 53. His 25 previous complaints failed to state a claim, and the current one fares no better. Accordingly, I 26 will recommend that his most recent complaint be dismissed without leave to amend. 27 28 1 2 Screening Order 3 I. Screening and Pleading Requirements 4 A federal court must screen a prisoner’s complaint that seeks relief against a governmental 5 entity, officer, or employee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must identify any cognizable 6 claims and dismiss any portion of the complaint that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a 7 claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is 8 immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b)(1), (2). 9 A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief, 10 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 11 face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility standard does not 12 require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 13 662, 678 (2009). If the allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere 14 possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not 15 identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024, 16 1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that 17 give rise to an enforceable right to relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264 18 n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (citations omitted). 19 The court must construe a pro se litigant’s complaint liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 20 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). The court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s complaint “if it 21 appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which 22 would entitle him to relief.” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2017). 23 However, “‘a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements 24 of the claim that were not initially pled.’” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 25 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)). 26 27 28 1 II. Analysis 2 Plaintiff’s third amended complaint is frivolous. As best I can tell, he claims that an 3 ongoing state criminal case against him is a pretext for a “religious gerrymander against the Santo 4 Daime religion.” ECF No. 53 at 1.1 He alleges the fanciful existence of a far-reaching alliance 5 between the federal government and Christian pastors to block the exercise of pagan religions. 6 Id. at 2. The rest of the complaint, which runs forty-one pages in length, recounts plaintiff’s 7 alleged persecution by various actors. At no point does plaintiff present a cogent, non-frivolous 8 claim. 9 Plaintiff has already been afforded an opportunity to amend his complaint. Given the state 10 of his most recent complaint, I find that granting him another opportunity to amend would be 11 futile. I will recommend that his complaint be dismissed without leave to amend. 12 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to join respondents, ECF No. 49, 13 and motion to append, ECF No. 61, are DENIED. 14 Further, I RECOMMEND that: 15 1. Plaintiff’s third amended complaint, ECF No. 53, be dismissed with prejudice and 16 without leave to amend for failure to state a claim. 17 2. Plaintiff’s motions for injunctive relief, ECF Nos. 47, 54, 55, & 58, be DENIED. 18 These recommendations will be submitted to the U.S. district judge presiding over the 19 case under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304. Within fourteen days of the service of 20 these findings and recommendations, the parties may file written objections with the court and 21 serve a copy on all parties. That document must be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 22 Findings and Recommendations.” The presiding district judge will then review the findings and 23 recommendations under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). 24 25 26 27 1 Plaintiff has also motioned to add various supplements to his third amended complaint. ECF Nos. 61 & 62. Though such supplements are impermissible, I have reviewed them out of an 28 abundance of caution. They do nothing to save his complaint. 1 | 1718 SO ORDERED. 3 ( — Dated: __March 28, 2022 Jess Vote 4 JEREMY D. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 ul 12 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 21 29 23 24 25 26 27 28