(PC) Brock v. Bobby ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 PHILIP BROCK, Case No. 2:21-cv-01556-JDP (PC) 11 Plaintiff, ORDER THAT: 12 v. (1) PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS BE 13 BOBBY, et al., GRANTED 14 Defendants. (2) CLERK OF COURT ASSIGN A DISTRICT JUDGE TO RULE ON THESE 15 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 16 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS THAT PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT BE 17 DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND 18 ECF Nos. 1 & 5 19 FOURTEEN-DAY DEADLINE 20 21 22 Plaintiff, a state prisoner, has filed a suit alleging far-reaching and, ultimately, frivolous 23 conspiracies. ECF No. 1. I will grant his application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 5, 24 and recommend that his complaint be dismissed without leave to amend. 25 26 27 28 1 2 Screening and Pleading Requirements 3 A federal court must screen a prisoner’s complaint that seeks relief against a governmental 4 entity, officer, or employee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must identify any cognizable 5 claims and dismiss any portion of the complaint that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a 6 claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is 7 immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b)(1), (2). 8 A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief, 9 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 10 face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility standard does not 11 require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 12 662, 678 (2009). If the allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere 13 possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not 14 identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024, 15 1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that 16 give rise to an enforceable right to relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264 17 n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (citations omitted). 18 The court must construe a pro se litigant’s complaint liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 19 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). The court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s complaint “if it 20 appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which 21 would entitle him to relief.” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2017). 22 However, “‘a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements 23 of the claim that were not initially pled.’” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 24 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)). 25 26 27 28 1 Analysis 2 Plaintiff begins by alleging that, four and a half years ago, he was kidnapped and tortured 3 for three days and nights by six unnamed persons. ECF No. 1 at 1. He claims that he eventually 4 escaped and learned that the kidnapping was orchestrated by a development firm in Tennessee 5 that was attempting to take his family property. Id. at 1-2. Plaintiff goes on to allege that inmate 6 sex offenders in California are being targeted for murder after release from prison by unknown 7 parties, though I cannot tell how this claim is related, if at all, to his allegations regarding the 8 property in Tennessee. Id. at 3. The remainder of plaintiff’s allegations are difficult to follow 9 and involve allegations of illegal experimentation by prison officials and the activities of a 10 domestic terror cell. Id. at 5-6. Plaintiff’s allegations are frivolous because they describe 11 “fantastic or delusional scenarios.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). Given that 12 they cannot be saved by amendment, I will recommend they be dismissed without leave to 13 amend. 14 Accordingly, I ORDER that: 15 1. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 5, is GRANTED. 16 2. The Clerk of Court is directed to assign a district judge to this action. 17 Further, I RECOMMEND that plaintiff’s complaint, ECF No. 1, be DISMISSED without 18 leave to amend as frivolous. 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, plaintiff may file written objections 22 with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings 23 and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right 24 to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); 25 Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 26 27 28 1 > IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 ( | { Wine Dated: _ June 21, 2022 4 JEREMY D. PETERSON 5 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28