(PS) Chiu v. President of U.S. ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TAIFUSIN CHIU, Case No. 2:23-cv-00097-DJC-JDP (PS) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA 13 v. PAUPERIS 14 THE PRESIDENT OF U.S., et al., ECF No. 2 15 Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS THAT PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT BE 16 DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS 17 ECF No. 1 18 OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN DAYS 19 20 Plaintiff filed a complaint purporting to assert claims against the President of the United 21 States, Shiloh Arms Kids, Child Protective Service, and Apartment K, together with an 22 application to proceed in forma pauperis. His complaint, however, fails to state a claim, and I 23 will recommend that it be dismissed as frivolous. I will grant plaintiff’s application to proceed 24 in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, which makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(a)(1) 25 and (2). 26 Screening and Pleading Requirements 27 A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief, 28 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 1 face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility standard does not 2 require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 3 662, 678 (2009). If the allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere 4 possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not 5 identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024, 6 1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that 7 give rise to an enforceable right to relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264 8 n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (citations omitted). 9 The court must construe a pro se litigant’s complaint liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 10 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). The court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s complaint “if it 11 appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which 12 would entitle him to relief.” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2017). 13 However, “‘a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements 14 of the claim that were not initially pled.’” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 15 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)). 16 Analysis 17 Plaintiff’s complaint is largely unintelligible and contains no allegations concerning an 18 identifiable incident. See generally ECF No. 1. For example, plaintiff states in the complaint that 19 “[t]he six-sense word are thinking word, visual word, smelling word, spoken word, tasting word, 20 hearing word, touching word, and/or written word and above and beyond and infinite bond of 21 white diamond blue nile ct bond and free all debt bond and generate each country and all 22 countries and free all debt and winner-take-all system as highest achievement and obtain Medal 23 of Honor award,” id. at 2-3, and “[h]e or she get cop or FBI and call cop to kill my military work 24 and SSI check and mental hospital are remove for military work and put me on SSI check and put 25 pill,” id. at 4. 26 Plaintiff’s complaint, which the court has been unable to decipher, fails to comport with 27 Rule 8’s requirement that it present a short and plain statement of plaintiff’s claims. Fed. R. Civ. 28 P. 8(a). Plaintiff names the President of the United States, Shiloh Arms Kids, Child Protective 1 Service, and Apartment K as defendants but asserts no intelligible facts relating to them. 2 Moreover, plaintiff’s allegations against these defendants do not identify any actions taken by 3 them that could support a claim for relief. See Jones v. Cmty. Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 4 (9th Cir. 1984) (“The plaintiff must allege with at least some degree of particularity overt acts 5 which defendants engaged in that support the plaintiff’s claim.”). Plaintiff must allege with at 6 least some degree of particularity overt acts of defendants that support his claims. Id. 7 The operative complaint should be dismissed for failure to state a claim. Given plaintiff’s 8 allegations, I find that granting an opportunity to amend would not cure the complaint’s 9 deficiencies, and so I recommend that dismissal be without further leave to amend.1 See Schucker 10 v. Rockwood, 846 F.2d 1202, 1203-04 (9th Cir. 1988) (per curiam) (“Dismissal of a pro se 11 complaint without leave to amend is proper only if it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of 12 the complaint could not be cured by amendment.”) (internal quotation marks and citations 13 omitted). 14 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiff’s request for leave to proceed in forma 15 pauperis, ECF No. 2, is granted. 16 Furthermore, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that: 17 1. Plaintiff’s complaint, ECF No. 1, be dismissed without leave to amend. 18 2. The Clerk of Court be directed to close this matter. 19 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 20 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 21 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 22 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 23 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 24 objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 25 1 Plaintiff has filed other complaints resembling in some ways the instant complaint, and none have survived screening. See Chiu v. Trump, 2:22-cv-00764-KJM-AC (PS) (May 11, 2022 26 E.D. Cal) (plaintiff’s complaint dismissed without leave to amend and with prejudice); Chiu v. 27 President of the United States, 2:22-cv-00809-TLN-DB (PS) (Oct. 24, 2022 E.D. Cal) (plaintiff’s complaint dismissed without leave to amend); Chiu v. Extra Storage Space, 2:23-cv-00099-KJM- 28 AC (PS) (Jan. 23, 2023 E.D. Cal) (plaintiff’s complaint dismissed without leave to amend). 1 | parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 2 | appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez 3 | v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 4 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ April 5, 2023 Q_——_. 7 JEREMY D. PETERSON 8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28