(PS) Peterson v. Secretary of State ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WILLIAM PETERSON, No. 2:24-cv-01812-TLN-CKD (PS) 12 Plaintiffs, 13 v. ORDER 14 SECRETARY OF STATE, DIVISION OF 15 ELECTION, 16 Defendant. 17 18 19 Plaintiff, William Peterson, proceeds without counsel1 and seeks relief under 42 U.S.C. § 20 1983. Plaintiff’s complaint is before the court for screening and plaintiff requests to proceed in 21 forma pauperis. (ECF Nos. 1, 2.) Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis makes the 22 showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915, and the request is granted. The complaint fails to state a 23 claim, but plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint. 24 I. SCREENING REQUIREMENT 25 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the court must screen every in forma pauperis 26 proceeding, and must order dismissal of the case if it is “frivolous or malicious,” “fails to state a 27 1 Because plaintiff proceeds without counsel, this action is referred to the undersigned by Local 28 Rule 302(c)(21) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. 1 claim on which relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is 2 immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 3 (2000). In performing this screening, the court liberally construes a pro se plaintiff’s pleadings. 4 See Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1137 (9th Cir. 1987). 5 II. ALLEGATIONS IN THE COMPLAINT 6 Plaintiff names as the sole defendant “Secretary of State Division of Election” and the 7 document filed as the complaint states the following: “Dear Sir, your rules violate the 15th 8 Amendment. Also I seek have my name placed on ballet as I am indigent and like [illegible] and 9 Biden I can have fee waived and my name placed on ballet [sic].” (ECF No. 1 at 2.) 10 III. PLEADING STANDARDS 11 A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 12 pleader is entitled to relief....” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not 13 required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 14 conclusory statements, do not suffice[.]” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell 15 Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). While factual allegations are accepted as 16 true, legal conclusions are not. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. Courts “are not required to indulge 17 unwarranted inferences[.]” Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) 18 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 19 Pro se litigants are entitled to have their pleadings liberally construed and to have any 20 doubt resolved in their favor, Eldridge, 832 F.2d at 1137, but a plaintiff’s claims must be facially 21 plausible to survive screening. Facial plausibility for a claim requires sufficient factual detail to 22 allow the court to reasonably infer that a named defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. 23 Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. 24 IV. THE COMPLAINT MUST BE DISMISSED 25 The vague statements in the complaint fail to give fair notice of any cognizable claims and 26 the grounds on which they rest. Although the Federal Rules adopt a flexible pleading policy, even 27 a pro se litigant’s complaint must give fair notice and state the elements of a claim plainly and 28 succinctly. Jones v. Community Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). Here, the 1 | complaint does not contain a short and plain statement of a claim as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 2 | 8(a)(2). The complaint does not describe in an understandable way the specific conduct the 3 || named defendant is alleged to have engaged in that violated plaintiffs rights. The court is unable 4 || to discern what facts underlie the causes of action plaintiff is attempting to bring. The complaint 5 || must be dismissed because it does not contain sufficient factual content to allow the court to draw 6 || the reasonable inference that defendant has violated plaintiff's rights. See McHenry v. Renne, 84 7 || F.3d 1172, 1178-80 (9th Cir. 1996) (affirming dismissal of complaint where “one cannot 8 | determine from the complaint who is being sued, for what relief, and on what theory, with enough 9 || detail to guide discovery”). 10 V. CONCLUSION 11 The complaint must be dismissed, but plaintiff is granted leave to amend. See Lucas v. 12 | Dep’t of Corr., 66 F.3d 245, 248 (9th Cir. 1995) (“Unless it is absolutely clear that no amendment 13 || can cure the defect... a pro se litigant is entitled to notice of the complaint’s deficiencies and an 14 || opportunity to amend prior to dismissal of the action.”). An amended complaint should be titled 15 | “First Amended Complaint.” Local Rule 220 requires that an amended complaint be complete by 16 || itself without reference to any prior pleading. In any amended complaint, as in an original 17 || complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged. See 18 | Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). 19 In accordance with the above, IT IS ORDERED as follows: 20 1. Plaintiffs request to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is granted; 21 2. Plaintiff's complaint (ECF No. 1) is dismissed with leave to amend; and 22 3. Plaintiffis granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to file an amended 23 || complaint that complies with the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the 24 || Local Rules of Practice; failure to file an amended complaint in accordance with this order will 25 || result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. 26 | Dated: September 12, 2024 / iA / 4 [iy ai 27 | s CAROLYNK DELANEY ag | Pete2dev1812.sern UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE