# (PC) Miles v. Stohlman > District Court, E.D. California · February 12, 2024 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10059157 ## Case - **Court:** District Court, E.D. California - **Decided:** February 12, 2024 - **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/10059157 ## Opinion text 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GEORGIA MILES, No. 2:23-cv-00827 DJC DB P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 STOHLMAN, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff, Georgia Miles, proceeds without counsel and seeks relief under 42 U.S.C. § 19 1983. This matter was referred to the undersigned by Local Rule 302. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 20 Plaintiff’s complaint (ECF No. 1) is before the court for screening. The complaint’s allegations 21 do not state a claim. Because it clearly appears leave to amend would be futile, the undersigned 22 recommends the complaint be dismissed without leave to amend. 23 I. In Forma Pauperis 24 Plaintiff seeks to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 2, 9.) “A district court may deny 25 leave to proceed in forma pauperis at the outset if it appears from the face of the proposed 26 complaint that the action is frivolous or without merit.” Tripati v. First Nat’l Bank & Tr., 821 27 F.2d 1368, 1370 (9th Cir. 1987). On this basis, for the reasons set forth below, the undersigned 28 will recommend plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis be denied. 1 II. Screening Requirement 2 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the court must screen every in forma pauperis 3 proceeding, and mut order dismissal of the case if it is “frivolous or malicious,” “fails to state a 4 claim on which relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is 5 immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 6 (2000). A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 7 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th 8 Cir. 1984). The court may dismiss a claim as frivolous if it is based on an indisputably meritless 9 legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327. 10 Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires a short and plain statement 11 of the claim that shows the pleader is entitled to relief. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 12 544, 555 (2007). In order to state a cognizable claim, a complaint must contain more than “a 13 formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action;” it must contain factual allegations 14 sufficient “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Id., 550 U.S. at 555. The facts 15 alleged must “‘give the defendant fair notice of what the... claim is and the grounds upon which it 16 rests.’” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). In 17 reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court accepts as true the non-conclusory 18 allegations of the complaint and construes the pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. 19 See id.; Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974). 20 III. Plaintiff’s Allegations 21 Plaintiff alleges her son was kidnaped by police, held hostage, and trafficked by 22 informants. (ECF No. 1 at 3.) Plaintiff’s car, food, clothing, and other items were stolen and 23 vandalized. (Id.) Plaintiff’s remaining allegations are very difficult to decipher, but plaintiff 24 mentions her public defender, legal mail delays, retaliation, lockdowns, plaintiff’s son and 25 daughter, false charges, police brutality, rape, theft, embezzlement, sexual harassment, drug 26 withdrawals, and child abuse. (Id. at 4-5.) 27 //// 28 //// 1 IV. Discussion 2 Plaintiff’s claims are incomprehensible. Plaintiff also fails to make any specific 3 allegations against any individual defendant. The complaint does not present plausible factual 4 allegations or legally coherent theories of liability establishing a claim for relief, and should be 5 dismissed. See Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992) (“[A] court may dismiss a claim 6 as factually frivolous only if the facts alleged are ‘clearly baseless,’ a category encompassing 7 allegations that are ‘fanciful,’ ‘fantastic,’ and ‘delusional.’ … [A] finding of factual frivolousness 8 is appropriate when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible.” 9 (internal citations omitted)); see also Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327-28 (1989). The 10 present claims should be dismissed on that basis. 11 If it is clear a complaint cannot be cured by amendment, the court may dismiss without 12 leave to amend. Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105-06 (9th Cir. 1995); see also Lopez v. 13 Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). Here, the contents of the complaint are 14 sufficiently unintelligible that it is clear leave to amend would not result in a cognizable claim. 15 V. Recommendation 16 In accordance with the above, IT IS RECOMMENDED as follows: 17 1. Plaintiff’s requests for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF Nos. 2, 9) be DENIED. 18 2. The complaint be dismissed without leave to amend for failure to state a claim. 19 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 20 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within twenty-one days 21 after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 22 with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judges Findings 23 and Recommendations.” 24 //// 25 //// 26 //// 27 //// 28 1 Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the 2 | right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 3 | Dated: February 9, 2024 4 5 6 | mileo827 sem BORAH BARNES 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 28 --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10059157. Public record. Not legal advice.