(PC) Potter v. Maroun ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ONIS CARRABINE POTTER, Case No. 2:23-cv-02162-JDP (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 MAROUN, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a county inmate, brings this § 1983 action against four prosecutors at the 18 Sacramento County District Attorney’s Office. ECF No. 1. The allegations in the complaint are 19 insufficient to proceed. I will give plaintiff an opportunity to file an amended complaint before 20 recommending that this action be dismissed. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis 21 makes the required showing and will be granted. 22 Screening and Pleading Requirements 23 A federal court must screen the complaint of any claimant seeking permission to proceed 24 in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The court must identify any cognizable claims and 25 dismiss any portion of the complaint that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon 26 which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 27 relief. Id. 28 1 A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief, 2 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 3 face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility standard does not 4 require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 5 662, 678 (2009). If the allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere 6 possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not 7 identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024, 8 1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that 9 give rise to an enforceable right to relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264 10 n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (citations omitted). 11 The court must construe a pro se litigant’s complaint liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 12 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). The court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s complaint “if it 13 appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which 14 would entitle him to relief.” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2017). 15 However, “‘a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements 16 of the claim that were not initially pled.’” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 17 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)). 18 Analysis 19 The complaint alleges that plaintiff, a “sovereign,” cannot be charged with a crime by 20 “public servants.” ECF No. 1 at 3. The complaint claims plaintiff is incarcerated without cause 21 and that multiple officers had to hold plaintiff’s head to take his photo. Id. at 4-5. 22 Courts have continually and categorically rejected as frivolous claims based on sovereign 23 citizen theories. See United States v. Ward, 182 F.3d 930 (9th Cir. 1999) (noting that contentions 24 based on sovereign citizen arguments are “frivolous” and that “courts ordinarily reject similar 25 contentions without extended argument”). That rejection holds true here; the complaint does not 26 state a viable claim. In addition to that, the named defendants—county prosecutors—are immune 27 from this suit. See Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259, 273 (1993) (“We have not retreated, 28 however, from the principle that acts undertaken by a prosecutor in preparing for the initiation of 1 judicial proceedings or for trial, and which occur in the course of his role as an advocate for the 2 | State, are entitled to the protections of absolute immunity.”). The complaint also does not assert 3 | any factual allegations against the named defendants. See Jones v. Cmty. Redev. Agency, 733 4 | F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984) (“The plaintiff must allege with at least some degree of particularity 5 || overt acts which defendants engaged in that support the plaintiff's claim.”). 6 Plaintiff may file an amended complaint. He is advised that the amended complaint will 7 | supersede the current complaint. See Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F. 3d 896, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 8 | 2012) (en banc). This means that the amended complaint will need to be complete on its face 9 | without reference to the prior pleading. See E.D. Cal. Local Rule 220. Once an amended 10 || complaint is filed, the current complaint no longer serves any function. Therefore, in an amended 11 | complaint, as in an original complaint, plaintiff will need to assert each claim and allege each 12 | defendant’s involvement in sufficient detail. The amended complaint should be titled “First 13 | Amended Complaint” and refer to the appropriate case number. 14 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 15 1. Plaintiffs application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, is granted. 16 2. Within thirty days from the service of this order, plaintiff may file an amended 17 | complaint. If he does not, I will recommend that this action be dismissed. 18 3. Failure to comply with this order may result in the dismissal of this action. 19 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to send plaintiff a complaint form. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 ( q Sty - Dated: _ November 1, 2023 q——— 23 JEREMY D,. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 25 26 27 28