(PC) Roberts v. Department of the Treasury ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAVID ROBERTS, No. 2:22-CV-1789-DAD-DMC-P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 18 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s first amended complaint, ECF No. 17. 19 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief 20 against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. 21 § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if it: (1) is frivolous or 22 malicious; (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief 23 from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Moreover, 24 the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that complaints contain a “. . . short and plain 25 statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). This 26 means that claims must be stated simply, concisely, and directly. See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 27 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996) (referring to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e)(1)). These rules are satisfied if the 28 complaint gives the defendant fair notice of the plaintiff’s claim and the grounds upon which it 1 rests. See Kimes v. Stone, 84 F.3d 1121, 1129 (9th Cir. 1996). Because Plaintiff must allege 2 with at least some degree of particularity overt acts by specific defendants which support the 3 claims, vague and conclusory allegations fail to satisfy this standard. Additionally, it is 4 impossible for the Court to conduct the screening required by law when the allegations are vague 5 and conclusory. 6 Here, as with the original complaint, Plaintiff challenges deductions of child 7 support payments from various government stimulus checks. See ECF No. 1. The Court finds 8 that Plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because such deductions are 9 permitted by the Offset Program authorized under 45 C.F.R. § 303.72 and the Administrative 10 Offset Program authorized under 31 U.S.C. § 3716. Plaintiff has not alleged a violation of federal 11 law which is actionable under § 1983. 12 The Court previously outlined the foregoing in prior findings and 13 recommendations that this action be dismissed for failure to state a claim. See ECF No. 14. The 14 District Judge adopted the findings and recommendations but declined to dismiss the action at 15 that time. See ECF No. 16. Rather, the District Judge granted Plaintiff an opportunity to amend. 16 See id. In doing so, the District Judge cautioned Plaintiff that any amended complaint must state 17 “a factual basis for his assertion the deductions of child support payments from various stimulus 18 checks were unlawful.” Id. at 2. Plaintiff was also cautioned that his amended complaint must 19 allege facts supporting the elements of a claim under § 1983, which includes a requirement that 20 the defendant be a “person” acting under color of law. Id. In the amended complaint, Plaintiff 21 fails to comply with either directive. Specifically, Plaintiff continues to name as the only 22 defendant the Department of the Treasury, which is not a “person.” Further, as with the original 23 complaint, Plaintiff fails to set forth a factual basis to support his contention that the child support 24 deductions were unlawful. 25 Because it does not appear possible that the deficiencies identified herein can be 26 cured by further amendment, Plaintiff is not entitled to leave to amend prior to dismissal of the 27 entire action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 28 / / / ] Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that this action be dismissed 2 || with prejudice for failure to state a claim. 3 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 4 | Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within 14 days 5 || after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 6 || objections with the court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of 7 || objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal. See 8 | Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 9 10 | Dated: January 23, 2024 Ss..c0_, DENNIS M. COTA 2 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28