(PC) Potter v. Maroun ( 2024 )

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, ORDER 13 v. GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND 14 MAROUN, et al., DIRECTING THE CLERK OF COURT TO RANDOMLY ASSIGN A DISTRICT 15 Defendants. JUDGE TO THIS MATTER 16 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 17 THAT PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT BE DISMISSED WITHOUT 18 LEAVE TO AMEND FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM 19 ECF No. 5 20 OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN 21 DAYS 22 23 Plaintiff, a county inmate, brings this § 1983 action against the California Office of 24 Attorney General, the Central California Appellate Program, Sacramento County Superior Court, 25 the State of Idaho, and an individual named Jan Bennet. ECF No. 5. The complaint is 26 completely devoid of factual allegations, and plaintiff has failed to cure the deficiencies discussed 27 in the court’s prior screening order. Accordingly, I will recommend that this action be dismissed 28 for failure to state a claim. 1 Screening and Pleading Requirements 2 A federal court must screen the complaint of any claimant seeking permission to proceed 3 in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The court must identify any cognizable claims and 4 dismiss any portion of the complaint that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon 5 which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 6 relief. Id. 7 A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief, 8 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 9 face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility standard does not 10 require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 11 662, 678 (2009). If the allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere 12 possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not 13 identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024, 14 1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that 15 give rise to an enforceable right to relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264 16 n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (citations omitted). 17 The court must construe a pro se litigant’s complaint liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 18 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). The court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s complaint “if it 19 appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which 20 would entitle him to relief.” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2017). 21 However, “‘a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements 22 of the claim that were not initially pled.’” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 23 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)). 24 Analysis 25 The amended complaint contains no factual allegations and consists largely of statements 26 of sovereign-citizen ideological principles. See ECF No. 5. For example, plaintiff states, “I am 27 not a territorial United States citizen nor a municipal citizen of the United States. I am a living 28 woman, standing peacefully in honor on the land and soil jurisdiction.” Id. at 2-3. 1 As discussed in the court’s prior screening order, courts have continually and categorically 2 rejected as frivolous claims based on sovereign citizen theories. See United States v. Ward, 182 3 F.3d 930 (9th Cir. 1999) (noting that contentions based on sovereign citizen arguments are 4 “frivolous” and that “courts ordinarily reject similar contentions without extended argument”). 5 The allegations fail to identify any actions taken by any defendant that could support a claim for 6 relief. See Jones v. Cmty. Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984) (“The plaintiff must 7 allege with at least some degree of particularity overt acts which defendants engaged in that 8 support the plaintiff’s claim.”). 9 As the amended complaint did not cure the prior deficiencies, and it contains no factual 10 basis or allegations of wrongdoing, I find that the complaint should be dismissed without leave to 11 amend for failure to state a claim. See Schucker v. Rockwood, 846 F.2d 1202, 1203-04 (9th Cir. 12 1988) (per curiam) (“Dismissal of a pro se complaint without leave to amend is proper only if it is 13 absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by amendment.”) 14 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 15 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to assign a district judge 16 to this action. 17 Further, it is RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without leave to amend. 18 I submit these findings and recommendations to the district judge under 28 U.S.C. 19 § 636(b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, 20 Eastern District of California. Within 14 days of the service of the findings and 21 recommendations, any party may file written objections to the findings and recommendations 22 with the court and serve a copy on all parties. That document should be captioned “Objections to 23 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The district judge will review the findings 24 and recommendations under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Failure to file objections within the 25 specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. See Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 26 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014). 27 28 1 > IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 ( | { Wine Dated: _ January 17, 2024 Q_——. 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