(PS) Chiu v. All Churches Outside Culture ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TAIFUSIN CHIU, Case No. 2:24-cv-00472-TLN-JDP (PS) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 14 ALL CHURCHES OUTSIDE CULTURE, et al., ECF No. 2 15 Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 16 THAT PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT BE 17 DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND 18 ECF No. 1 19 OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN DAYS 20 21 Plaintiff filed a complaint purporting to assert claims against All Churches Outside 22 Culture and Donald Trump, together with an application to proceed in forma pauperis. His 23 complaint, however, fails to state a claim, and I will recommend that it be dismissed. I will grant 24 plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, which makes the showing 25 required by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(a)(1) and (2). 26 Screening and Pleading Requirements 27 A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief, 28 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 1 face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility standard does not 2 require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 3 662, 678 (2009). If the allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere 4 possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not 5 identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024, 6 1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that 7 give rise to an enforceable right to relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264 8 n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (citations omitted). 9 The court must construe a pro se litigant’s complaint liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 10 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). The court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s complaint “if it 11 appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which 12 would entitle him to relief.” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2017). 13 However, “‘a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements 14 of the claim that were not initially pled.’” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 15 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)). 16 Analysis 17 The complaint is largely incoherent and fails to assert any cause of action against either 18 defendant. See generally ECF No. 1. The complaint contains nonsensical sentences and provides 19 no allegations of alleged wrongdoing. For example, plaintiff writes, “Medal of Honor versus 20 Purple Heart The President Show Down 900 Spetillion Number 99 USD Quora’s Number 21 President Show Down and USD Infinite President Show down Maximum Number to Infinite 22 Number USD President. . . .” Id. at 1. 23 The complaint fails to comport with Rule 8’s requirement that it present a short and plain 24 statement of plaintiff’s claims. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Plaintiff names “all churches outside 25 culture” and Donald Trump as defendants but asserts no discernable facts relating to them. 26 Moreover, plaintiff’s allegations do not identify any actions taken by defendants that could 27 support a claim for relief. See Jones v. Cmty. Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984) 28 (“The plaintiff must allege with at least some degree of particularity overt acts which defendants 1 engaged in that support the plaintiff’s claim.”). Plaintiff must allege with at least some degree of 2 particularity overt acts of defendants that support his claims. Id. 3 Plaintiff has filed several complaints within the last year that resemble in some manner the 4 instant complaint, and none have survived screening. See Chiu v. Trump, 2:22-cv-00764-KJM- 5 AC (PS) (May 11, 2022 E.D. Cal.) (plaintiff’s complaint dismissed without leave to amend and 6 with prejudice); Chiu v. President of the United States, 2:22-cv-00809-TLN-DB (PS) (Oct. 24, 7 2022 E.D. Cal.) (plaintiff’s complaint dismissed without leave to amend); Chiu v. Extra Storage 8 Space, 2:23-cv-00099-KJM-AC (PS) (Jan. 23, 2023 E.D. Cal.) (plaintiff’s complaint dismissed 9 without leave to amend); Chiu v. President of U.S., 2:23-cv-00098-KJM-JDP (PS) (July 11, 2023 10 E.D. Cal.) (plaintiff’s complaint dismissed without leave to amend); Chiu v. Bank of America, 11 2:23-cv-01201-KJM-AC (PS) (Aug. 28, 2023 E.D. Cal.) (plaintiff’s complaint dismissed without 12 leave to amend); Chiu v. President of U.S., 2:23-cv-00835-DJC-JDP (PS) (Jan. 16, 2024 E.D. 13 Cal.) (plaintiff’s complaint dismissed without leave to amend); Chiu v. Bank of America, 2:23-cv- 14 01200-KJM-JDP (PS) (Feb. 5, 2024 E.D. Cal.) (plaintiff’s complaint dismissed without leave to 15 amend). 16 The operative complaint should be dismissed for failure to state a claim. In light of the 17 complaint’s allegations, I find that granting plaintiff an opportunity to amend would not cure the 18 complaint’s deficiencies, and so I recommend that dismissal be without leave to amend. See 19 Schucker v. Rockwood, 846 F.2d 1202, 1203-04 (9th Cir. 1988) (per curiam) (“Dismissal of a pro 20 se complaint without leave to amend is proper only if it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of 21 the complaint could not be cured by amendment.”) (internal quotation marks and citations 22 omitted). 23 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiff’s request for leave to proceed in forma 24 pauperis, ECF No. 2, is granted. 25 Furthermore, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that: 26 1. Plaintiff’s complaint, ECF No. 1, be dismissed without leave to amend. 27 2. The Clerk of Court be directed to close this matter. 28 1 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 2 | assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days 3 | after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 4 | objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 5 | “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 6 | objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 7 | parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 8 || appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez 9 | v. Vist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 10 Wl IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 ( 4 ie — Dated: _ March 11, 2024 q_———. 13 JEREMY D. PETERSON 4 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28