# (PC) Lester v. Unknown > District Court, E.D. California · June 15, 2021 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10027195 ## Case - **Court:** District Court, E.D. California - **Decided:** June 15, 2021 - **Opinion:** 100trialcourt - **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10027195 ## Opinion text 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GERALD LESTER, No. 2:21-CV-0702-WBS-DMC-P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 UNKNOWN, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action under 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s original complaint, ECF No. 1. 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 7 I. PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS 8 According to Plaintiff’s complaint, Plaintiff is bringing suit against: (1) all 9 California Attorneys General; (2) all California District Attorneys; (3) all Superior Court Judges 10 who “took jurisdiction over illegal felony complaints made by prosecutors. . .from 1951 to 2020” 11 in California’s 58 counties; and (4) the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation 12 (CDCR). See ECF No. 1, pg. 1. Plaintiff does not claim a location where the events giving rise to 13 the complaint took place. According to Plaintiff, this lawsuit “is a felony complaint under 18 14 U.S.C. Sec. 4. . . .” Id. 15 Plaintiff alleges he is a “victim of the conspiracy between the prosecutors and the 16 Superior Courts in California that has been going on since at least 1951.” Id. Plaintiff claims over 17 100,000 inmates “started with a[n] illegal felony complaint instead of a grand jury indictment and 18 then was held in prison for years behind another fraudulent piece of paper.” Id. at 5. According to 19 the complaint, Plaintiff’s detainment is due to a fraudulent felony complaint that is in violation of 20 Title 18 U.S.C. § 4. Id. at 6. As a result, Plaintiff states he is “a victim and a witness for this 21 felony complaint” and his detainment is sustained by a “fraudulent abstract of judgment.” Id. 22 Plaintiff claims that CDCR - acting under an abstract judgment and absent a written judgment in 23 CDCR’s files - has no authority to hold inmates. Id. at 1. Plaintiff alleges that prosecutors filed 24 cases and held trials without victims or witnesses to the crimes. Id. According to Plaintiff, these 25 prosecutors convicted without grand jury indictments and committed fraud under California Penal 26 Code 115(A). Id. at 1-2. Plaintiff claims the Superior Court Judges presiding over these cases 27 took jurisdiction over illegal felony complaints and, in doing so, committed treason. Id. at 1. 28 Plaintiff further alleges that the prisoners CDCR released because of COVID-19 in August of 1 2020 were part of a conspiracy that they were illegally detained. Id. at 3. Plaintiff states that, 2 under Governor Gavin Newsom’s Executive Order from June 2020, the released inmates are 3 entitled to compensation of $1,400 per day for each day of incarceration and detained inmates are 4 entitled to $2,000 per day for continued, unlawful incarceration. Id. at 7. Plaintiff claims he is 5 entitled to release because an abstract of judgment and an absence of a signed written judgment 6 are evidence of this fraud. Id. at 4. 7 Attached to Plaintiff’s complaint are several news articles, Plaintiff’s letters 8 demanding release, and CDCR’s responses rejecting Plaintiff’s demands. See id. Upon 9 inspection, the news articles reporting on statements made by Governor Gavin Newsom and 10 former CDCR Secretary Ralph Diaz are not from any verified news outlet, but from an unverified 11 third-party source called “www.withoutoneplea.com.” Id. at 10. Plaintiff also attaches a 12 paragraph of “validation and verification” sent by G. Matteson, the warden at California State 13 Prison – Solano. See id. 14 15 II. DISCUSSION 16 It is unclear from the complaint what the source of Plaintiff’s injury is or who 17 Plaintiff claims is liable. Plaintiff names large groups of unspecific individuals and no private 18 individuals who are linked to an alleged constitutional violation. Additionally, the statute Plaintiff 19 brings this action under is not available as a source for a private cause of action, thus Plaintiff 20 fails to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 21 A. Causal link 22 Plaintiff brings suit against all California Attorneys General, District Attorneys, 23 and Superior Court Judges for allegedly detaining prisoners under fraudulent authority. To state a 24 claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the plaintiff must allege an actual connection or link between the 25 actions of the named defendants and the alleged deprivations. See Monell v. Dep’t of Social 26 Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976). “A person ‘subjects’ another 27 to the deprivation of a constitutional right, within the meaning of § 1983, if he does an affirmative 28 act, participates in another's affirmative acts, or omits to perform an act which he is legally 1 required to do that causes the deprivation of which complaint is made.” Johnson v. Duffy, 588 2 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). Vague and conclusory allegations concerning the involvement of 3 official personnel in civil rights violations are not sufficient. See Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 4 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). Rather, the plaintiff must set forth specific facts as to each 5 individual defendant’s causal role in the alleged constitutional deprivation. See Leer v. Murphy, 6 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 1988). 7 Plaintiff vaguely concludes classes of officials are in violation of Title 18 U.S.C. 8 § 4 for misprision of a felony under the belief that these officials hold fraudulent abstracts of 9 judgment for over a hundred thousand prisoners. Plaintiff does not allege a constitutional source 10 of his injury or any private individuals who deprived Plaintiff of his constitutional rights. Without 11 a causal link to a specific defendant or specific act, Plaintiff fails to state a cognizable complaint. 12 B. Private Right of Action Under 18 U.S.C. § 4 13 In this case, Plaintiff cannot bring a private cause of action under 18 U.S.C. § 4. 14 Plaintiff is barred from bringing this action because “the statute contains no express provision 15 permitting a civil litigant to initiate a lawsuit.” Massad v. Greaves, 554 F. Supp. 2d 163, 167 16 (2008). The decision whether to prosecute under 18 U.S.C. § 4 generally rests with the 17 prosecutor. See Shahin v. Darling, 606 F. Supp. 2d 525, 538 (D. Del.), aff'd, 350 F. App'x 605 (3d 18 Cir. 2009). 19 / / / 20 / / / 21 / / / 22 / / / 23 / / / 24 / / / 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 I. CONCLUSION 2 Because it does not appear possible that the deficiencies identified herein can be 3 | cured by amending the complaint, Plaintiff is not entitled to leave to amend prior to dismissal of 4 | the entire action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 5 Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that Plaintiff's complaint be 6 | dismissed with prejudice. 7 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 8 | Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(). Within 14 days 9 | after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 10 | objections with the court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of 11 | objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal. See 12 | Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 13 14 | Dated: June 14, 2021 Ssvcqo_ 15 DENNIS M. COTA 16 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10027195. Public record. Not legal advice.