(PS) Chiu v. Extra Space Storage ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TAIFUSIN CHIU, No. 2:23-cv-00099 KJM AC PS 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 EXTRA SPACE STORAGE, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was referred to the undersigned 18 by E.D. Cal. R. 302(c)(21). Plaintiff has filed a request for leave to proceed in forma 19 pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, and has submitted the affidavit required by that 20 statute. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). The motion to proceed IFP will therefore be granted. 21 I. SCREENING 22 A determination that a plaintiff qualifies financially for in forma pauperis status does not 23 complete the inquiry required by the statute. The federal IFP statute requires federal courts to 24 dismiss a case if the action is legally “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which 25 relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 26 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Plaintiff must assist the court in determining whether or not the 27 complaint is frivolous, by drafting the complaint so that it complies with the Federal Rules of 28 Civil Procedure (“Fed. R. Civ. P.”). Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the complaint 1 must contain (1) a “short and plain statement” of the basis for federal jurisdiction (that is, the 2 reason the case is filed in this court, rather than in a state court), (2) a short and plain statement 3 showing that plaintiff is entitled to relief (that is, who harmed the plaintiff, and in what way), and 4 (3) a demand for the relief sought. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Plaintiff’s claims must be set forth 5 simply, concisely and directly. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1). 6 A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 7 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the 8 court will (1) accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in the complaint, unless they 9 are clearly baseless or fanciful, (2) construe those allegations in the light most favorable to the 10 plaintiff, and (3) resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor. See Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327; Von 11 Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art at Pasadena, 592 F.3d 954, 960 (9th Cir. 2010), cert. 12 denied, 564 U.S. 1037 (2011). 13 The court applies the same rules of construction in determining whether the complaint 14 states a claim on which relief can be granted. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (court 15 must accept the allegations as true); Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974) (court must 16 construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff). Pro se pleadings are held to a 17 less stringent standard than those drafted by lawyers. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 18 (1972). However, the court need not accept as true conclusory allegations, unreasonable 19 inferences, or unwarranted deductions of fact. Western Mining Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d 618, 20 624 (9th Cir. 1981). A formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action does not suffice 21 to state a claim. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-57 (2007); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 22 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). To state a claim on which relief may be granted, the plaintiff must 23 allege enough facts “to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 24 570. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the 25 court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” 26 Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. 27 A pro se litigant is entitled to notice of the deficiencies in the complaint and an 28 opportunity to amend, unless the complaint’s deficiencies could not be cured by amendment. See 1 Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987), superseded on other grounds by statute as 2 stated in Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir.2000)) (en banc). 3 II. THE COMPLAINT 4 The putative 4-page complaint is unintelligible. ECF No. 1. There is no clearly 5 identifiable incident that forms the basis of the complaint. No causes of action are asserted. The 6 sentences in the complaint do not make sense. For example, plaintiff writes: “My decision, I sue 7 him or her but he or she refuse to pay, denial to pay, or reject to pay. I perform my merit white 8 gloves on their employment pay rate in this Smart and Final.” ECF No. 1 at 3. The complaint 9 later states “He or she is dismissed jail as highest achievement and obtain Medal of Honor 10 Award.” Id. 11 III. ANALYSIS 12 The complaint does not contain facts that indicate any basis for federal jurisdiction or that 13 support any cognizable legal claim against any defendant. The undersigned finds that the 14 complaint consists entirely of fanciful and nonsensical sentences and allegations with no basis in 15 law and no plausible supporting facts. Accordingly, the complaint cannot support relief and must 16 be dismissed. See Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327; Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. 17 It is readily apparent that amendment would be futile. Although leave to amend is 18 generally to be granted with liberality, “[v]alid reasons for denying leave to amend include undue 19 delay, bad faith, prejudice, and futility.” California Architectural Bldg. Prod. v. Franciscan 20 Ceramics, 818 F.2d 1466, 1472 (9th Cir. 1988); see also Klamath-Lake Pharm. Ass'n v. Klamath 21 Med. Serv. Bureau, 701 F.2d 1276, 1293 (9th Cir. 1983) (holding that while leave to amend shall 22 be freely given, the court does not have to allow futile amendments). Considering the content of 23 the complaint before the court, the undersigned finds that it would be futile to grant plaintiff leave 24 to amend. 25 IV. PRO SE PLAITNIFF’S SUMMARY 26 Your request that the court waive your filing fee is being granted and you will not have to 27 pay the filing fee in this case. However, because your complaint does not make any legal claim 28 //// 1 | or provide facts that could support any legal claim, the undersigned is recommending that your 2 || case be dismissed. 3 V. CONCLUSION 4 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's application to 5 || proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2), is GRANTED. 6 Further, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that all claims against all defendants should 7 || be DISMISSED 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: January 20, 2023 ~ Ctt10 Lhar—e_ 7 ALLISONCLAIRE. SS 18 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28