(PS)Chiu v. Trump ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TAIFUSIN CHIU, No. 2:22-cv-0764 KJM AC PS 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 DONALD TRUMP/STORAGE/CHOKE ME STORY, 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was referred to the undersigned 19 by E.D. Cal. R. 302(c)(21). Plaintiff has filed a request for leave to proceed in forma 20 pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, and has submitted the affidavit required by that 21 statute. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). The motion to proceed IFP will therefore be granted. 22 I. SCREENING 23 A determination that a plaintiff qualifies financially for in forma pauperis status does not 24 complete the inquiry required by the statute. The federal IFP statute requires federal courts to 25 dismiss a case if the action is legally “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which 26 relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 27 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Plaintiff must assist the court in determining whether or not the 28 complaint is frivolous, by drafting the complaint so that it complies with the Federal Rules of 1 Civil Procedure (“Fed. R. Civ. P.”). Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the complaint 2 must contain (1) a “short and plain statement” of the basis for federal jurisdiction (that is, the 3 reason the case is filed in this court, rather than in a state court), (2) a short and plain statement 4 showing that plaintiff is entitled to relief (that is, who harmed the plaintiff, and in what way), and 5 (3) a demand for the relief sought. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Plaintiff’s claims must be set forth 6 simply, concisely and directly. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1). 7 A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 8 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the 9 court will (1) accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in the complaint, unless they 10 are clearly baseless or fanciful, (2) construe those allegations in the light most favorable to the 11 plaintiff, and (3) resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor. See Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327; Von 12 Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art at Pasadena, 592 F.3d 954, 960 (9th Cir. 2010), cert. 13 denied, 564 U.S. 1037 (2011). 14 The court applies the same rules of construction in determining whether the complaint 15 states a claim on which relief can be granted. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (court 16 must accept the allegations as true); Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974) (court must 17 construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff). Pro se pleadings are held to a 18 less stringent standard than those drafted by lawyers. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 19 (1972). However, the court need not accept as true conclusory allegations, unreasonable 20 inferences, or unwarranted deductions of fact. Western Mining Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d 618, 21 624 (9th Cir. 1981). A formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action does not suffice 22 to state a claim. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-57 (2007); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 23 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). To state a claim on which relief may be granted, the plaintiff must 24 allege enough facts “to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 25 570. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the 26 court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” 27 Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. 28 //// 1 A pro se litigant is entitled to notice of the deficiencies in the complaint and an 2 opportunity to amend, unless the complaint’s deficiencies could not be cured by amendment. See 3 Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987), superseded on other grounds by statute as 4 stated in Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir.2000)) (en banc). 5 II. THE COMPLAINT 6 The putative 40-page complaint is largely unintelligible. Though filed as a single 7 document, it consists of several complaints strung together. No causes of action are identified. 8 The only clear factual allegation is that on May 3, 2022, plaintiff was assaulted by a white male 9 from a storage facility. ECF No. 1 at 2. The body of the document alternates between incoherent 10 prose and phrases set out in a manner akin to free verse. For example, the complaint begins: 11 999 Sextillion Number President Show Down 12 Achievement versus no achievement 13 Restrict versus picky 14 Boundary line versus border line 15 Restrict versus picky on boundary line versus borderline on human rights and law 16 in overall life achievement 17 The President Show Down 18 Sky and land overall life achievement fortune rank bond 19 Medal of Honor vs Purple Heart 20 World debt fighter 21 Free all debt case 22 Id. at 1-2. 23 The following passage is typical of the prose portions of the complaint: 24 He states he going to swing or beat the cramp of me under such a spoken and above and beyond and infinite bond of gold and generate 25 each country and all countries and free debt as highest achievement and obtain Medal of Honor award. He violates 0 dots, 0 word, 0 26 number, 0 punctuation mark, and 0 letter. 27 Id. at 3-4. 28 The document concludes with plaintiff’s assertion that “I am The President of US, Chiu, 1 Taifusin. I create the bill, sign the bill, pass the bill, win the bill, approve the bill, and winner- 2 take-all system as highest achievement and obtain Medal of Honor.” Id. at 40. Plaintiff states an 3 intention to share a portion of his gambling winnings “with attorney or judge.” Id. 4 III. ANALYSIS 5 The complaint does not contain facts that indicate any basis for federal jurisdiction or that 6 support any cognizable legal claim against any defendant. The undersigned finds that the 7 complaint consists entirely of fanciful and nonsensical allegations with no basis in law and no 8 plausible supporting facts. Accordingly, the complaint cannot support relief and must be 9 dismissed. See Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327; Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. 10 It is readily apparent that amendment would be futile. Although leave to amend is 11 generally to be granted with liberality, “[v]alid reasons for denying leave to amend include undue 12 delay, bad faith, prejudice, and futility.” California Architectural Bldg. Prod. v. Franciscan 13 Ceramics, 818 F.2d 1466, 1472 (9th Cir. 1988); see also Klamath-Lake Pharm. Ass'n v. Klamath 14 Med. Serv. Bureau, 701 F.2d 1276, 1293 (9th Cir. 1983) (holding that while leave to amend shall 15 be freely given, the court does not have to allow futile amendments). Considering the content of 16 the complaint before the court, the undersigned finds that it would be futile to grant plaintiff leave 17 to amend. 18 IV. PRO SE PLAITNIFF’S SUMMARY 19 Your request that the court waive your filing fee is being granted and you will not have to 20 pay the filing fee in this case. However, because your complaint does not make any legal claim, 21 the undersigned is recommending that your case be dismissed. 22 V. CONCLUSION 23 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s application to 24 proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2), is GRANTED. 25 Further, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that all claims against all defendants should 26 be DISMISSED with prejudice. 27 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 28 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty-one days 1 | after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 2 || with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings 3 || and Recommendations.” Plaintiff advised that failure to file objections within the specified 4 | time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 5 | (th Cir. 1991). 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 || DATED: May 11, 2022 ~ Lhier—e_ 8 ALLISONCLAIRE 9 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28