(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-00098-KJM-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 and lu Mien from Church, together with an application to proceed in forma pauperis. His 22 complaint, however, fails to state a claim, and I will recommend that it be dismissed as frivolous. 23 I will grant plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, which makes the 24 showing required by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(a)(1) and (2). 25 Screening and Pleading Requirements 26 A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief, 27 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 28 face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility standard does not 1 require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 2 662, 678 (2009). If the allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere 3 possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not 4 identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024, 5 1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that 6 give rise to an enforceable right to relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264 7 n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (citations omitted). 8 The court must construe a pro se litigant’s complaint liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 9 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). The court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s complaint “if it 10 appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which 11 would entitle him to relief.” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2017). 12 However, “‘a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements 13 of the claim that were not initially pled.’” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 14 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)). 15 Analysis 16 Plaintiff’s complaint is unintelligible and devoid of factual allegations regarding an 17 identifiable incident. See generally ECF No. 1. For example, plaintiff states in the complaint, 18 “[h]e beat the cramp or knock out the Asian or me which he never touch me before and makes 19 agreement to let him down payment world debt for $125 per month and shake his head for world 20 debt and let him join the team pay off the world debt for 5 year and after 5 year and your free to 21 go ad automatic deduction from your employees check as highest achievement and obtain Medal 22 of Honor award,” id. at 3, and “[i]f sky and land overall life achievement rank bond big than earth 23 rank bond and qualify free all debt as highest achievement and obtain Medal of Honor award.” id. 24 at 5. 25 Plaintiff’s complaint fails to comport with Rule 8’s requirement that it present a short and 26 plain statement of plaintiff’s claims. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Plaintiff names the President of the 27 United States and lu Mien from Church as defendants but asserts no intelligible facts relating to 28 them. Moreover, plaintiff’s allegations against these defendants do not identify any actions taken 1 by them that could support a claim for relief. See Jones v. Cmty. Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 2 649 (9th Cir. 1984) (“The plaintiff must allege with at least some degree of particularity overt acts 3 which defendants engaged in that support the plaintiff’s claim.”). Plaintiff must allege with at 4 least some degree of particularity overt acts of defendants that support his claims. Id. 5 The operative complaint should be dismissed for failure to state a claim. Given plaintiff’s 6 allegations, I find that granting an opportunity to amend would not cure the complaint’s 7 deficiencies, and so I recommend that the dismissal be without further leave to amend.1 See 8 Schucker v. Rockwood, 846 F.2d 1202, 1203-04 (9th Cir. 1988) (per curiam) (“Dismissal of a pro 9 se complaint without leave to amend is proper only if it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of 10 the complaint could not be cured by amendment.”) (internal quotation marks and citations 11 omitted). 12 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiff’s request for leave to proceed in forma 13 pauperis, ECF No. 2, is granted. 14 Furthermore, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that: 15 1. Plaintiff’s complaint, ECF No. 1, be dismissed without leave to amend. 16 2. The Clerk of Court be directed to close this matter. 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)(l). Within fourteen days 19 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 20 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 21 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 22 objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 23 parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 24 25 1 Plaintiff has filed other cases resembling this the complaint, and none have survived screening. See Chiu v. Trump, 2:22-cv-00764-KJM-AC (PS) (May 11, 2022 E.D. Cal) (plaintiff’s 26 complaint dismissed without leave to amend and with prejudice); Chiu v. President of the United 27 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-AC (PS) (Jan. 23, 28 2023 E.D. Cal) (plaintiff’s complaint dismissed without leave to amend). 1 appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez 2 | v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ April 6, 2023 q-—— 6 JEREMY D. PETERSON 7 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28