court must 17 construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff
How later courts described this case
- court must 17 construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff
- court 16 must accept the allegations as true
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 MADIHA MINER, No. 2:19-cv-01496 MCE AC PS
12 Plaintiff,
13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
14 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, FBI,
and CIA,
15
Defendants.
16
17
18 Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was referred to the undersigned in
19 by E.D. Cal. R. 302(c)(21). Plaintiff has filed a request for leave to proceed in forma
20 pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, and has submitted the affidavit required by that
21 statute. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). The motion to proceed IFP will therefore be granted.
22 I. SCREENING
23 A determination that a plaintiff qualifies financially for in forma pauperis status does not
24 complete the inquiry required by the statute. The federal IFP statute requires federal courts to
25 dismiss a case if the action is legally “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which
26 relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.
27 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Plaintiff must assist the court in determining whether or not the
28 complaint is frivolous, by drafting the complaint so that it complies with the Federal Rules of
1 Civil Procedure (“Fed. R. Civ. P.”). Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the complaint
2 must contain (1) a “short and plain statement” of the basis for federal jurisdiction (that is, the
3 reason the case is filed in this court, rather than in a state court), (2) a short and plain statement
4 showing that plaintiff is entitled to relief (that is, who harmed the plaintiff, and in what way), and
5 (3) a demand for the relief sought. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Plaintiff’s claims must be set forth
6 simply, concisely and directly. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1).
7 A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.
8 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the
9 court will (1) accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in the complaint, unless they
10 are clearly baseless or fanciful, (2) construe those allegations in the light most favorable to the
11 plaintiff, and (3) resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor. See Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327; Von
12 Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art at Pasadena, 592 F.3d 954, 960 (9th Cir. 2010), cert.
13 denied, 564 U.S. 1037 (2011).
14 The court applies the same rules of construction in determining whether the complaint
15 states a claim on which relief can be granted. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (court
16 must accept the allegations as true); Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974) (court must
17 construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff). Pro se pleadings are held to a
18 less stringent standard than those drafted by lawyers. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520
19 (1972). However, the court need not accept as true conclusory allegations, unreasonable
20 inferences, or unwarranted deductions of fact. Western Mining Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d 618,
21 624 (9th Cir. 1981). A formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action does not suffice
22 to state a claim. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-57 (2007); Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
23 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). To state a claim on which relief may be granted, the plaintiff must
24 allege enough facts “to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at
25 570. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the
26 court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”
27 Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
28 ////
1 A pro se litigant is entitled to notice of the deficiencies in the complaint and an
2 opportunity to amend, unless the complaint’s deficiencies could not be cured by amendment. See
3 Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987), superseded on other grounds by statute as
4 stated in Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir.2000)) (en banc).
5 II. THE COMPLAINT
6 The putative complaint presents no specific legal claim but alleges that plaintiff and
7 plaintiff’s family are “being maliciously harassed by the United States of America – FBI and
8 CIA.” ECF No. 1 at 5. Plaintiff details the harassment as follows: tampering with their vehicles
9 (shattering a window in a car wash, nails in the tires, no air conditioning, a broken handle, failure
10 to start, a vehicle burglary, license plates stolen); plaintiff’s brother being over-charged by the
11 Sacramento Housing Authority, being billed close to $26,000 by Social Security for stopping
12 disability benefits, his mail being withheld, and an unidentified individual fraudulently posing as
13 a lawyer/advocate for plaintiff’s brother’s housing situation; the incarceration of plaintiff’s
14 mother without habeas corpus protection; breaking up plaintiff’s family; withholding incoming
15 and outcoming calls; surveillance; theft at plaintiff’s family’s homes; and discrimination against
16 plaintiff’s family at their places of employment. Id. at 7 and 8.
17 III. ANALYSIS
18 The complaint does not contain facts supporting any cognizable legal claim against any
19 defendant. The court finds that the complaint consists entirely of fanciful and delusional
20 allegations with no basis in law and no plausible supporting facts. See ECF No. 1. The contents
21 of the complaint make clear that any attempt at amendment would be futile and no plausible
22 claim exists. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Noll, 809 F.2d 1446. The undersigned will therefore
23 recommend that the complaint be dismissed with prejudice. The undersigned further
24 recommends that all motions filed by plaintiff in this case, including a motion for habeas corpus
25 on behalf of plaintiff’s mother (ECF No. 3) and a motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 5), be
26 denied as moot, and that this case be closed.
27 ////
28 ////
1 V. CONCLUSION
2 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs application to
3 || proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2), is GRANTED.
4 Further, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that all claims against all defendants should
5 || be DISMISSED with prejudice, and all pending motions, including ECF Nos. 3 and 5, be
6 | dismissed as MOOT, and that this case be closed.
7 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge
8 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(). Within twenty-one days
9 || after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections
10 | with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings
11 || and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified
12 || time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153
13 | (9th Cir. 1991).
14 IT IS SO ORDERED.
15 | DATED: August 28, 2019 ~
16 Chtten— Lhane
ALLISON CLAIRE
17 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28