(PS) Gigena v. Sexton ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GABRIEL OMAR GIGENA, No. 2:23-cv-1661 DJC AC PS 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 ANDREA SEXTON, et al, 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se. The matter was referred to the undersigned by 18 E.D. Cal. R. 302(c)(21). Plaintiff previously filed a request for leave to proceed in forma 19 pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, and submitted the affidavit required by that 20 statute. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). The motion for IFP was granted, but pursuant to the 21 screening process described below, the complaint was rejected and not served because it did not 22 state a claim upon which relief could be granted. ECF No. 3. Plaintiff was given the opportunity 23 to file an amended complaint suitable for service. Id. Before the court now for screening is 24 plaintiff’s amended complaint. ECF No. 6. 25 I. SCREENING 26 A determination that a plaintiff qualifies financially for in forma pauperis status does not 27 complete the inquiry required by the statute. The federal IFP statute requires federal courts to 28 dismiss a case if the action is legally “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which 1 relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 2 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Plaintiff must assist the court in determining whether or not the 3 complaint is frivolous, by drafting the complaint so that it complies with the Federal Rules of 4 Civil Procedure (“Fed. R. Civ. P.”). Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the complaint 5 must contain (1) a “short and plain statement” of the basis for federal jurisdiction (that is, the 6 reason the case is filed in this court, rather than in a state court), (2) a short and plain statement 7 showing that plaintiff is entitled to relief (that is, who harmed the plaintiff, and in what way), and 8 (3) a demand for the relief sought. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Plaintiff’s claims must be set forth 9 simply, concisely and directly. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1). 10 A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 11 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the 12 court will (1) accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in the complaint, unless they 13 are clearly baseless or fanciful, (2) construe those allegations in the light most favorable to the 14 plaintiff, and (3) resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor. See Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327; Von 15 Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art at Pasadena, 592 F.3d 954, 960 (9th Cir. 2010), cert. 16 denied, 564 U.S. 1037 (2011). 17 The court applies the same rules of construction in determining whether the complaint 18 states a claim on which relief can be granted. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (court 19 must accept the allegations as true); Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974) (court must 20 construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff). Pro se pleadings are held to a 21 less stringent standard than those drafted by lawyers. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 22 (1972). However, the court need not accept as true conclusory allegations, unreasonable 23 inferences, or unwarranted deductions of fact. Western Mining Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d 618, 24 624 (9th Cir. 1981). A formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action does not suffice 25 to state a claim. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-57 (2007); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 26 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). To state a claim on which relief may be granted, the plaintiff must 27 allege enough facts “to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 28 570. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the 1 court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” 2 Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. 3 A pro se litigant is entitled to notice of the deficiencies in the complaint and an 4 opportunity to amend, unless the complaint’s deficiencies could not be cured by amendment. See 5 Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987), superseded on other grounds by statute as 6 stated in Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir.2000)) (en banc). 7 II. THE COMPLAINT 8 Plaintiff’s amended complaint is difficult to understand, containing multiple disconnected 9 and/or unintelligible statements and allegations. For example, the amended complaint begins by 10 plaintiff stating he is the “Grantor and First Trustee of the Amador County Guardians of the 11 California Riders of the Kings and Queens of the North West of the Free Sovereign People of 12 Hayah Hawah, A Private Unincorporated Associated Trust of Free Peoples of the Kingdom of 13 Hayah Hawah, established by the Organic Act of August 16, 2018 in the Year of Jubilee.” ECF 14 No. 6 at 1. Under the title “statement of complaint” plaintiff states that he was a contracted 15 worker and sublease tenant of “John” who is the largest land holder in Amador County, and who 16 deprived him of wages. Plaintiff goes on to refer to various court cases in which he alleges his 17 rights were denied, though plaintiff does not provide clear or intelligible facts to support any 18 specific claims. Id. at 6-9. Plaintiff also raises the issue of a social services worker refusing to 19 process plaintiff’s general assistance in connection to a criminal case. Id. at 9. Plaintiff attaches 20 314 pages of exhibits, which range from email chains to filings from other courts. ECF No. 6-1. 21 III. ANALYSIS 22 The amended complaint does not contain facts supporting any cognizable legal claim 23 against any defendant, and the contents of the amended complaint make it clear that plaintiff will 24 be unable to file a complaint that can be served. The court finds that the complaint consists 25 entirely of delusional and/or unsupported allegations with no basis in law and no plausible 26 supporting facts. See ECF No. 6. The contents of the complaint are sufficiently unintelligible to 27 make it clear that further leave to amend in this case would not be fruitful. The undersigned will 28 therefore recommend that the complaint be dismissed with prejudice. 1 IV. PROSE PLAITNIFF’S SUMMARY 2 It is being recommended that your case be dismissed because your amended complaint 3 || does not state a legal claim. You may file objections to this recommendation within 21 days. 4 V. CONCLUSION 5 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the amended 6 || complaint (ECF No. 6), inclusive of all claims against all defendants, should be DISMISSED 7 || with prejudice. 8 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 9 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within twenty-one days 10 || after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 11 | with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings 12 || and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified 13 || time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 14 | (9th Cir. 1991). 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 || DATED: September 28, 2023 ~ 17 ththienr—Chnp—e_ ALLISON CLAIRE 18 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28