Epperson v. U.S. House of Senate ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHRIS EPPERSON, Case No. 1:23-cv-00781-ADA-BAM 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING DISMISSAL 13 v. (Docs. 5, 6) 14 U.S. HOUSE OF SENATE, FOURTEEN-DAY DEADLINE 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff Chris Epperson (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, initiated 18 this civil action on May 22, 2023. (Doc. 1.) On August 21, 2023, the Court screened Plaintiff’s 19 complaint and granted him leave to amend within thirty (30) days. (Doc. 4.) Plaintiff’s first 20 amended complaint, filed on September 25, 2023, is currently before the Court for screening. 21 (Doc. 6.) 22 I. Screening Requirement and Standard 23 The Court screens complaints brought by persons proceeding in pro se and in forma 24 pauperis. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Plaintiff’s complaint, or any portion thereof, is subject to 25 dismissal if it is frivolous or malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be 26 granted, or if it seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 27 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 28 A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 1 pleader is entitled to relief . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not 2 required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 3 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell 4 Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). While a plaintiff’s allegations are taken as 5 true, courts “are not required to indulge unwarranted inferences.” Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 6 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 7 To survive screening, Plaintiff’s claims must be facially plausible, which requires 8 sufficient factual detail to allow the Court to reasonably infer that each named defendant is liable 9 for the misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quotation marks omitted); Moss v. U.S. Secret 10 Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The sheer possibility that a defendant acted unlawfully 11 is not sufficient, and mere consistency with liability falls short of satisfying the plausibility 12 standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quotation marks omitted); Moss, 572 F.3d at 969. 13 II. Summary of Plaintiff’s Amended Allegations 14 In his amended complaint, Plaintiff names the following defendants: (1) Defendant 15 Virginia; (2) Defendant Baltimore; (3) Defendant New York; (4) Defendant Pennsylvania; (5) 16 Defendant Delaware; and (6) the republican party. (Doc. 5 at p. 1.) 17 Plaintiff alleges as follows: 18 A amended complaint 50 U.S.C. App. 2166(a) brought under the twenty-fifth section of the Judiciary Act of 1789, to revise the judgment of that Court on a 19 case involving the construction of the Constitution and laws of the United States. The first sentence of section 717(a) of the Defense Production Act of 1950 is 20 amended Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, 18 U.S.C. 1073, 48 Stat. 782 by striking 105 Stat. 1593 and inserting H.R. 3919 amended complaint 21 22 (Id.) He cites Article 1, section 8, Article 1, section 4, and Article 1, section 7. (Id.) 23 Plaintiff further alleges: 24 John F. Kennedy Assacination [sic] for the press plotted Character for figure of speech brought under the twenty-fifth section of the Judiciary Act of 1789, 25 involving the construction of the Constitution and laws of the United States. They dont [sic] even like you messing with their powers. Federal dont [sic] cross state. 26 18 U.S.C. 1073, Alien Sedition Act of Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1950. 50 U.S.C. App. 2166(a). 27 28 (Id. at p. 2.) Plaintiff also numerically lists “facto,” “quoto,” “salis,” “malice.” (Id.) 1 Additionally, Plaintiff alleges: 2 The C.I.A. opposition F.B.I. opposition D.E.A prerogative inititive Secret Service inititive fragible bullets easily to detect. Title XIV 33001691)(H) Secret Hidden 3 Encounters Conspierecy Embezzelment Extortion and Threats. 18 U.S.C. 1073, 108 Stat. 2147 Espionage Defrauded State. 50 (2011) Federal dont cross State. 4 (Id. at p. 3) (unedited text). Plaintiff also states, “motion to prohibit,” “imposition of sanctions,” 5 “cross examination,” “objection,” and “overrule.” (Id.) 6 III. Discussion 7 A. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 8 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, a complaint must contain “a short and 9 plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). 10 Detailed factual allegations are not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause 11 of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 12 (citation omitted). Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 13 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. 14 at 570, 127 S.Ct. at 1974). While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are 15 not. Id.; see also Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556–557. 16 Plaintiff’s amended complaint is not a plain statement of his claims. While short, 17 Plaintiff’s complaint does not include any factual allegations. It is disjointed and insubstantial 18 despite various apparent legal citations. At the most basic level, Plaintiff does not state what 19 happened, when it happened, or who was involved. He also does not clearly identify his claims, 20 causes of action, the parties, or the relief that he is seeking. Without any factual allegations, the 21 Court cannot determine what Plaintiff is alleging or how defendants are alleged to be 22 responsible. Absent clear, concise allegations, the amended complaint fails to state a cognizable 23 claim for relief. Despite being provided with the relevant pleading standard, Plaintiff has been 24 unable to cure this deficiency. 25 Further, as Plaintiff was previously advised, “[t]he court may ... dismiss a claim as 26 frivolous where it is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual 27 contentions are clearly baseless.” Howell v. Johnson, et al., No. 2:21-cv-00997-CKD, 2021 WL 28 1 3602139, at *1 (E.D. Cal. 2021) (citing Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989)). “The 2 critical inquiry is whether a ... claim, however inartfully pleaded, has an arguable legal and 3 factual basis.” Id. (citations omitted). Plaintiff’s amended complaint does not have an arguable 4 legal or factual basis. Indeed, the amended complaint lacks clear factual allegations. 5 IV. Conclusion and Recommendation 6 Plaintiff’s complaint fails to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, fails to state 7 a cognizable claim for relief, and is frivolous, lacking an arguable legal and factual basis. 8 Despite being provided with the relevant pleading and legal standards, Plaintiff has been unable 9 to cure the deficiencies in his complaint. Further leave to amend is not warranted. Lopez v. 10 Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000). 11 Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED as 12 follows: 13 1. This action be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to comply with Federal Rule of 14 Civil Procedure 8, failure state a cognizable claim upon which relief may be granted, 15 and as frivolous; and 16 2. All pending motions be denied. 17 These Findings and Recommendation will be submitted to the United States District 18 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 19 fourteen (14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendation, Plaintiff may 20 file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to 21 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file 22 objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the 23 magistrate’s factual findings” on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 24 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 26 Dated: September 26, 2023 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 27 28