(PC) Khademi v. Newsome ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAVOOD KHADEMI, Case No. 2:23-cv-02743-JDP (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA 14 GAVIN NEWSOM, et al., PAUPERIS AND FINDING THAT THE COMPLAINT FAILS TO STATE A 15 Defendants. VIABLE CLAIM AND GRANTING LEAVE TO AMEND 16 ECF Nos. 1 & 2 17 AMENDED COMPLAINT DUE WITHIN 18 THIRTY DAYS 19 20 Plaintiff, an inmate in the South Placer County Jail, brings this action against Governor 21 Newsom, an unspecified city council (presumably that of South Placer), and the Immigration and 22 Naturalization Services (“INS”). ECF No. 1 at 1-2. The specifics of his allegations, however, are 23 difficult to understand due to the complaint’s lack of organization and low legibility. As such, the 24 complaint does not adequately put defendants on notice of the claims against them. I will give 25 plaintiff leave to amend so that he may better plead his claims. I will also grant plaintiff’s 26 application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2. 27 28 1 Screening Order 2 I. Screening and Pleading Requirements 3 A federal court must screen the complaint of any claimant seeking permission to proceed 4 in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The court must identify any cognizable claims and 5 dismiss any portion of the complaint that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon 6 which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 7 relief. Id. 8 A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief, 9 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 10 face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility standard does not 11 require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 12 662, 678 (2009). If the allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere 13 possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not 14 identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024, 15 1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that 16 give rise to an enforceable right to relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264 17 n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (citations omitted). 18 The court must construe a pro se litigant’s complaint liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 19 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). The court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s complaint “if it 20 appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which 21 would entitle him to relief.” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2017). 22 However, “‘a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements 23 of the claim that were not initially pled.’” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 24 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)). 25 II. Analysis 26 Plaintiff brings this action against Governor Newsom, a city council, and the INS. ECF 27 No. 1 at 1-2. The specifics of his claims are difficult to comprehend, however. His handwriting 28 is difficult to read, and the complaint suffers from a lack of organization. As best I can tell, 1 plaintiff’s claims relate to defendants’ alleged refusal to allow the operation of a Section Eight 2 housing program. Id. at 4. The complaint does not, however, explain how each of the named 3 defendants have participated in the restriction of that program—at least not in any way that a 4 reader could be expected to grasp. The complaint moves from allegations of class action claims,1 5 id. at 5, to allegations that, in 2013, plaintiff was shot and stabbed after losing access to housing, 6 id. at 8. Plaintiff is advised that the statute of limitations for a section 1983 claim tracks state law, 7 Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 387 (2007), and, in California, there is a two-year statute of 8 limitations for personal injury claims, Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 335.1. Throughout, plaintiff brings 9 the borderline fanciful allegation that all of the defendants targeted him with a “premeditated 10 agenda,” but he never describes how he knows that the governor, city council, and a federal 11 agency were focused on harming him. ECF No. 1 at 9. 12 The complaint cannot proceed as written. It fails to give each defendant sufficient notice 13 of the claims against them and, at a more fundamental level, fails to present a comprehensible 14 narrative of how plaintiff’s rights were violated. Plaintiff must file an amended complaint that 15 remedies this deficiency. He is advised that the amended complaint will supersede the current 16 complaint. See Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F. 3d 896, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc). The 17 amended complaint should be titled “Amended Complaint” and refer to the appropriate case 18 number. 19 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 20 1. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, is GRANTED. 21 2. Within thirty days from the service of this order, plaintiff must file an amended 22 complaint that complies with this order. If he fails to do so, I will recommend that his unrelated 23 claims be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 24 3. The Clerk of Court shall send plaintiff a section 1983 complaint form with this order. 25 26 1 Plaintiff is not qualified to bring such claims. See C.E. Pope Equity Trust v. United 27 States, 818 F.2d 696, 697 (9th Cir. 1987) (“Although a non-attorney may appear in propria persona in his own behalf, that privilege is personal to him. . . . He has no authority to appear as 28 an attorney for others than himself.”). 1 > IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 ( | { Wine Dated: _ January 16, 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