The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10 WESTERN DIVISION
11
12 SAEED MASJEDI,
No. 2:25-cv-11706-ODW-BFM
13 Plaintiff,
v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
14 WHY CASE SHOULD NOT BE
ELIZABETH VALDEZ, et al., DISMISSED
15
Defendants.
16
17
18 SUMMARY OF ORDER
19 This order concerns a pro se civil rights complaint filed by Plaintiff Saeed
20 Masjedi. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants committed fraud on the Los Angeles
21 Superior Court, which affected the adjudication of his case. He alleges this
22 conduct violated his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
23 In evaluating Plaintiff’s application for in forma pauperis status, the
24 Court is required to dismiss the case if it determines that the action fails to state
25 a claim on which relief may be granted or seeks monetary relief against a
26 defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). It appears that
27 may be the case here as the Complaint does not comply with Rule 8’s
28 requirement that a Complaint provide a short and plain statement of the
1 grounds for relief. Beyond that, the Complaint does not appear to state a claim
2 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, since none of the Defendants are state actors and their
3 actions are not fairly attributable to the state.
4 The Court therefore orders Plaintiff to explain why his case should not be
5 dismissed. If Plaintiff fails to timely respond to this order, the Court may
6 recommend that this action be dismissed without prejudice for failure
7 to prosecute.
8 ORDER
9 A. Legal Standard
10 Where a plaintiff seeks permission to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court
11 is required to review the complaint and dismiss claims that are frivolous,
12 malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or seek
13 monetary relief against a defendant immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §
14 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii); see also Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000)
15 (en banc) (“It is also clear that section 1915(e) not only permits but requires a
16 district court to dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint that fails to state a
17 claim.”). In determining whether Plaintiff has stated a claim, the Court accepts
18 as true the factual claims in the Complaint and views all inferences in a light
19 most favorable to him. Hamilton v. Brown, 630 F.3d 889, 892-93 (9th Cir. 2011).
20 The Court does not, however, “accept as true allegations that are merely
21 conclusory, unwarranted deductions of fact, or unreasonable inferences.”
22 Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir. 2001).
23 Because Plaintiff is not represented by counsel, the Court construes the
24 Complaint liberally. Barrett v. Belleque, 544 F.3d 1060, 1061-62 (9th Cir. 2008)
25 (per curiam).
26 B. Factual Background
27 The Complaint alleges the following facts, taken as true for purposes of
28 this Order:
1 Plaintiff filed a civil case against Defendant Elizabeth Valdez in the Los
2 Angeles Superior Court, Case No. 23STCV11253. In response, Valdez filed a
3 cross-complaint. Plaintiff alleges that on June 18, 2024, Judges Feeney and Kim
4 falsified the record in the case and used that falsification to defeat his effort to
5 have the cross-complaint dismissed. (ECF 1 (“Compl.”) ¶ 16.) The Superior
6 Court’s decision was affirmed on appeal. (See Compl. ¶ 17.) Plaintiff alleges that
7 Defendants Valdez and her attorneys, Ashton Watkins, Adolfo Garber, and
8 Bruce Adelstein, were willful co-conspirators with the state actors to impose
9 extrinsic fraud on those courts. (Compl. ¶ 14.)
10 C. Analysis
11 Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires “a short and plain
12 statement showing that the pleader is entitled to relief” where each allegation
13 is “simple, concise, and direct.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), (d)(1). While Rule 8 does
14 not require detailed factual allegations, a complaint, at a minimum, must allege
15 enough facts to provide “fair notice” of both the claim being asserted and “the
16 grounds upon which [the particular claim] rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
17 550 U.S. 544, 555, 557 n.3 (2007) (internal citation and quotation marks
18 omitted). A complaint must make clear “who is being sued, for what relief, and
19 on what theory, with enough detail to guide discovery.” McHenry v. Renne, 84
20 F.3d 1172, 1177-78 (9th Cir. 2002).
21 Plaintiff fails to do so here. It is not clear why Plaintiff believes his First
22 or Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated. He alleges that Defendants’
23 fraud allowed them to “evade due adjudication of [his] Litigation Privilege
24 defense in that state court thereby obstructing the due dismissal of the Cross-
25 Complaint” and that the appellate court “repeated that falsification, evasion,
26 and deprivation.” (Compl. ¶¶ 16-17.) But it is not clear exactly what Defendants
27 allegedly falsified or how that prevented adjudication of his defense. From what
28 the Court can tell, both the superior court and the appellate court fully
1 considered the litigation privilege issue. See Masjedi v. Valdez, B340847, 2025
2 WL 3239045, at *4-5 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 20, 2025) (affirming trial court’s ruling
3 concerning the litigation privilege).
4 A violation of Rule 8 is itself a basis for dismissal. McHenry, 84 F.3d at
5 1178. It appears such dismissal is warranted here, based on the failure to
6 provide nonconclusory factual allegations.
7 Even if Plaintiff were able to cure the above deficiency, it does not appear
8 that he could state a claim under § 1983. To state a claim for relief under § 1983,
9 a complaint must allege: “(1) a violation of rights protected by the Constitution
10 or created by federal statute, (2) proximately caused (3) by conduct of a ‘person’
11 (4) acting under color of state law.” Crumpton v. Gates, 947 F.2d 1418, 1420 (9th
12 Cir. 1991). Here, Defendants are private parties: Valdez was Masjedi’s landlord,
13 and Garber, Watkins, and Adelstein are her attorneys. See Docket, Saeed
14 Masjedi v. Elizabeth Valdez, 23STCV11253, available
15 https://www.lacourt.ca.gov/pages/lp/access-a-case/tp/find-case-
16 information/cp/os-civil-case-access; see also Masjedi, 2025 WL 3239045, at *1.
17 They are therefore not liable under § 1983 unless “the conduct allegedly causing
18 the deprivation of a federal right [is] fairly attributable to the state.” Lugar v.
19 Edmondson Oil Co., 457 U.S. 922, 937 (1982).
20 The Complaint, however, does not state facts that permit the Court to
21 make that inference. Plaintiff’s allegations boil down to the claim that private
22 actors committed fraud on superior court judges. That the conduct occurred in
23 connection with decisions made by state courts judge does not, without more,
24 make it state action. Nor does adjudication of the parties’ claims or reliance on
25 any alleged fraud somehow make Defendants’ conduct attributable to the state.
26 And while Plaintiff claims that Defendants were “co-conspirators” and “joint
27 participants” with the state actors (Compl. ¶ 14), he has not made any specific
28 factual allegations to support that claim.
1 At bottom, it appears that Plaintiff fails to state a claim under § 1983.
2 CONCLUSION
3 For these reasons, it appears that in forma pauperis status should be
4 || denied. Moreover, because it does not appear Plaintiff could fix the lack of state
5 || action issue through amendment, the Court is inclined to recommend that the
6 || case dismissed without leave to amend. Before the Court recommends denial of
7 || the IFP application, however, the Court will give Plaintiff an opportunity to
8 || respond. Plaintiff is therefore ordered to show cause—to explain in writing—
9 || why the Court should not recommend denial of IFP status. Plaintiff's response
10 || should be filed no later than January 22, 2026. Plaintiffs failure to file a
11 || timely response as ordered may result in the Court recommending that
12 || his case be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute and to
13 || follow court orders.
14
15 |} DATED: December 22, 2025
16 Ninf
17
BRIANNA FULLER MIRCHEFF
18 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28