# (PC) Stevens v. Becerra

> District Court, E.D. California · August 18, 2021

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10029564

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. California
- **Decided:** August 18, 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/10029564

## Opinion text

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 LYRALISA LAVENA STEVENS, Case No. 1:21-cv-00346-NONE-JLT (PC)

12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
TO DISMISS ACTION AS FRIVOLOUS
13 v.
21-DAY DEADLINE
14 XAVIER BECERRA, et al.,
15 Defendants.
16
17 Lyralisa Lavena Stevens is a state prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis in this action.
18 Her complaint is before the Court for screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(a) and
19 1915(e)(2). For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds that the complaint is frivolous.
20 Therefore, the Court recommends that this case be dismissed without leave to amend.
21 I. SCREENING REQUIREMENT
22 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a
23 governmental entity or an officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).
24 The Court must dismiss such complaints or portions thereof, as well as complaints filed by in
25 forma pauperis plaintiffs, if the complaint raises claims that are frivolous or malicious, fails to
26 state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is
27 immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b), 1915(e)(2). The Court should dismiss a
complaint if it lacks a cognizable legal theory or fails to allege sufficient facts to support a
1 cognizable legal theory. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir.
2 1990).
3 II. PLEADING REQUIREMENTS
4 A. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)
5 “Rule 8(a)’s simplified pleading standard applies to all civil actions, with limited
6 exceptions.” Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 U.S. 506, 513 (2002). A complaint must contain
7 “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R.
8 Civ. Pro. 8(a)(2). “Such a statement must simply give the defendant fair notice of what the
9 plaintiff's claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Swierkiewicz, 534 U.S. at 512 (internal
10 quotation marks and citation omitted).
11 Detailed factual allegations are not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a
12 cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
13 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Plaintiff must
14 set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim that is plausible on its face.’”
15 Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). Factual allegations are accepted as
16 true, but legal conclusions are not. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).
17 The Court construes pleadings of pro se prisoners liberally and affords them the benefit of
18 any doubt. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted). However, “the
19 liberal pleading standard . . . applies only to a plaintiff’s factual allegations,” not his legal
20 theories. Neitze v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 330 n.9 (1989). Furthermore, “a liberal interpretation
21 of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements of the claim that were not initially
22 pled,” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (internal
23 quotation marks and citation omitted), and courts “are not required to indulge unwarranted
24 inferences,” Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation
25 marks and citation omitted). The “sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully” is not
26 sufficient to state a cognizable claim, and “facts that are merely consistent with a defendant’s
27 liability” fall short. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
1 B. Linkage and Causation
2 Section 1983 provides a cause of action for the violation of constitutional or other federal
3 rights by persons acting under color of state law. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983. To state a claim under
4 section 1983, a plaintiff must show a causal connection or link between the actions of the
5 defendants and the deprivation alleged to have been suffered by the plaintiff. See Rizzo v. Goode,
6 423 U.S. 362, 373-75 (1976). The Ninth Circuit has held that “[a] person ‘subjects’ another to the
7 deprivation of a constitutional right, within the meaning of section 1983, if he does an affirmative
8 act, participates in another’s affirmative acts, or omits to perform an act which he is legally
9 required to do that causes the deprivation of which complaint is made.” Johnson v. Duffy, 588
10 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978) (citation omitted).
11 III. DISCUSSION
12 On July 28, 2017, Plaintiff initiated Stevens v. Beard, et al., No. 1:17-cv-01002-AWI-SAB
13 (E.D. Cal.).1 On March 28, 2019, District Judge Anthony W. Ishii granted a motion to dismiss the
14 action. Id. (Doc. 38). Plaintiff appealed the dismissal on April 22, 2019. Id. (Doc. 40). The appeal
15 is still pending.
16 On March 1, 2021, Plaintiff initiated the present action. (Doc. 1.) She alleges that Judge
17 Ishii committed a felony by denying Plaintiff a jury trial in Stevens v. Beard. (Id. at 8.) She also
18 alleges that former California Secretary of State Alex Padilla violated the False Claims Act “by
19 refusing to file Plaintiff[’s] UCC Financing Statements.” (Id.) She contends that Judge Ishii,
20 former Secretary Padilla, and former California Attorney General Xavier Becerra are liable for
21 more than $900 million in damages. (Id.) In addition to these individuals, Plaintiff names nine
22 assistant or deputy attorneys generals as defendants. (Id. at 3-5.)
23 A complaint is frivolous within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1915 “where it lacks an
24 arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). “The court
25 may . . . dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory or
26 where the factual contentions are clearly baseless.” Howell v. Johnson, et al., No. 2:21-cv-00997-
27 CKD, 2021 WL 3602139, at *1 (E.D. Cal. 2021) (citing Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327). “The critical
1 inquiry is whether a . . . claim, however inartfully pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual
2 basis.” Id. (citations omitted).
3 Plaintiff’s complaint is legally frivolous. Plaintiff’s allegations amount to no more than a
4 disagreement with the court’s dismissal of Stevens v. Beard. Although Plaintiff has the right to
5 appeal the dismissal, as she has done, the dismissal by itself provides no arguable legal grounds
6 for a damages action against the case’s presiding judge, the secretary of state, or the defendants’
7 attorneys. Plaintiff’s contention that Judge Ishii committed a felony or that former Secretary
8 Padilla violated the False Claims Act do not have even an arguable basis in law or fact. Moreover,
9 “[j]udges are absolutely immune from damages actions for judicial acts taken within the
10 jurisdiction of their courts.” Schucker v. Rockwood, 846 F.2d 1202, 1204 (9th Cir. 1988) (citation
11 omitted). Plaintiff’s complaint is wholly without merit, and the Court cannot identify any possible
12 cognizable claim that Plaintiff could establish if granted leave to amend.
13 IV. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
14 For the reasons set forth above, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s complaint is frivolous and
15 cannot be cured by amendment. Therefore, the Court RECOMMENDS that this action be
16 DISMISSED without leave to amend. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1128 n.8 (9th Cir.
17 2000) (when a case is “frivolous or malicious, there is, by definition, no merit to the underlying
18 action and so no reason to grant leave to amend”).
19 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District
20 Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 21 days of the date of
21 service of these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections with the
22 Court. The document should be captioned, “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and
23 Recommendations.”
24 ///
25 ///
26 ///
27 ///
1 Plaintiff’s failure to file objections within the specified time may result in waiver of her
2 rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v.
3 Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).
4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
5

6 Dated: August 18, 2021 _ /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
7

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10029564. Public record. Not legal advice.