holding that while leave to amend shall be freely 28 //// 1 || given, the court does not have to allow futile amendments
How later courts described this case
- holding that while leave to amend shall be freely 28 //// 1 || given, the court does not have to allow futile amendments
- “the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying McGee’s request to proceed 10 IFP because it appears from the face of the amended complaint that McGee’s action is frivolous 11 or without merit”
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 LEWIS EDISON, No. 2:22-cv-0474 TLN DB PS
12 Plaintiff,
13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
14 DAVID MICHAEL HUNEKE, UNITED
STATES AGENCY FBI/CIA,
15
16 Defendant.
17
18 Plaintiff Lewis Edison is proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was referred to the
19 undersigned in accordance with Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Pending
20 before the court are plaintiff’s complaint and motion to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28
21 U.S.C. § 1915. (ECF Nos. 1 & 2.) The complaint’s allegations concern a fanciful conspiracy.
22 The court is required to screen complaints brought by parties proceeding in forma
23 pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); see also Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir.
24 2000) (en banc). Here, plaintiff’s complaint is deficient. Accordingly, for the reasons stated
25 below, the undersigned will recommend that plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed without leave to
26 amend.
27 ////
28 ////
1 I. Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis
2 Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis application makes the financial showing required by 28
3 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). However, a determination that a plaintiff qualifies financially for in forma
4 pauperis status does not complete the inquiry required by the statute. “‘A district court may deny
5 leave to proceed in forma pauperis at the outset if it appears from the face of the proposed
6 complaint that the action is frivolous or without merit.’” Minetti v. Port of Seattle, 152 F.3d
7 1113, 1115 (9th Cir. 1998) (quoting Tripati v. First Nat. Bank & Trust, 821 F.2d 1368, 1370 (9th
8 Cir. 1987)); see also McGee v. Department of Child Support Services, 584 Fed. Appx. 638 (9th
9 Cir. 2014) (“the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying McGee’s request to proceed
10 IFP because it appears from the face of the amended complaint that McGee’s action is frivolous
11 or without merit”); Smart v. Heinze, 347 F.2d 114, 116 (9th Cir. 1965) (“It is the duty of the
12 District Court to examine any application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis to determine
13 whether the proposed proceeding has merit and if it appears that the proceeding is without merit,
14 the court is bound to deny a motion seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis.”).
15 Moreover, the court must dismiss an in forma pauperis case at any time if the allegation of
16 poverty is found to be untrue or if it is determined that the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to
17 state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against an immune
18 defendant. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). A complaint is legally frivolous when it lacks an
19 arguable basis in law or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v.
20 Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th Cir. 1984). Under this standard, a court must dismiss a
21 complaint as frivolous where it is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory or where the
22 factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).
23 To state a claim on which relief may be granted, the plaintiff must allege “enough facts to
24 state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,
25 570 (2007). In considering whether a complaint states a cognizable claim, the court accepts as
26 true the material allegations in the complaint and construes the allegations in the light most
27 favorable to the plaintiff. Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984); Hosp. Bldg. Co. v.
28 Trustees of Rex Hosp., 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976); Love v. United States, 915 F.2d 1242, 1245
1 (9th Cir. 1989). Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by
2 lawyers. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). However, the court need not accept as true
3 conclusory allegations, unreasonable inferences, or unwarranted deductions of fact. Western
4 Mining Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d 618, 624 (9th Cir. 1981).
5 The minimum requirements for a civil complaint in federal court are as follows:
6 A pleading which sets forth a claim for relief . . . shall contain (1) a
short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the court’s
7 jurisdiction depends . . . , (2) a short and plain statement of the claim
showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and (3) a demand for
8 judgment for the relief the pleader seeks.
9 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a).
10 II. Plaintiff’s Complaint
11 “[T]he in forma pauperis statute . . . ‘accords judges not only the authority to dismiss a
12 claim based on an indisputably meritless legal theory, but also the unusual power to pierce the
13 veil of the complaint’s factual allegations and dismiss those claims whose factual contentions are
14 clearly baseless.’” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32 (1992) (quoting Neitzke, 490 U.S. at
15 327). “Examples of the latter class are claims describing fantastic or delusional scenarios, claims
16 with which federal district judges are all too familiar.” Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 328.
17 Here, the complaint alleges that “defendants have used space satellites with beams locked
18 onto plaintiff . . . to make them look like someone to take over human research experiments
19 investigations security.” (Compl. (ECF No. 1) at 7.) In this regard, the complaint’s allegations
20 are delusional.
21 III. Leave to Amend
22 For the reasons stated above, plaintiff’s complaint should be dismissed. The undersigned
23 has carefully considered whether plaintiff may amend the complaint to state a claim upon which
24 relief could be granted. “Valid reasons for denying leave to amend include undue delay, bad
25 faith, prejudice, and futility.” California Architectural Bldg. Prod. v. Franciscan Ceramics, 818
26 F.2d 1466, 1472 (9th Cir. 1988); see also Klamath-Lake Pharm. Ass’n v. Klamath Med. Serv.
27 Bureau, 701 F.2d 1276, 1293 (9th Cir. 1983) (holding that while leave to amend shall be freely
28 ////
1 || given, the court does not have to allow futile amendments). In light of the deficiencies noted
2 | above, the undersigned finds that it would be futile to grant plaintiff leave to amend.
3 CONCLUSION
4 For the reasons stated above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:
5 1. Plaintiff's March 14, 2022 application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) be
6 | denied;
7 2. Plaintiff's March 14, 2022 complaint (ECF No. 1) be dismissed without leave to
8 || amend; and
9 3. This action be closed.
10 These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge
11 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days
12 | after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections
13 || with the court. A document containing objections should be titled “Objections to Magistrate
14 | Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within
15 || the specified time may, under certain circumstances, waive the right to appeal the District Court’s
16 | order. See Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
17 | Dated: April 29, 2022
19
20 BORAH BARNES
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
21
22
23 DLB:6
DB/orders/orders.pro se/edison0474.dism.f&rs
24
25
26
27
28