Bluth

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 ANTHONY MILLS, Case No. 2:26-cv-00516-TLN-CSK (PS)

12 Plaintiff,

13 v. ORDER GRANTING IFP REQUEST AND

GRANTING LEAVE TO AMEND

14 ARLENE BLUTH,

(ECF Nos. 1, 2)

15 Defendant.

16

17 Plaintiff Anthony Mills is representing himself in this action and seeks leave to

18 proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.1 (ECF No. 2.) Plaintiff’s

19 application in support of the IFP request makes the required financial showing.

20 Accordingly, the Court grants Plaintiff’s IFP request.

21 I. SCREENING REQUIREMENT

22 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the court must screen every in forma pauperis

23 proceeding, and must order dismissal of the case if it is “frivolous or malicious,” “fails to

24 state a claim on which relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief against a

25 defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Lopez v. Smith,

26 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (2000) (en banc). A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an

27

1 This matter proceeds before the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, Fed. R.

28 Civ. P. 72, and Local Rule 302(c).

1 arguable basis either in law or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). In

2 reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court accepts as true the factual

3 allegations contained in the complaint, unless they are clearly baseless or fanciful, and

4 construes those allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See Neitzke, 490

5 U.S. at 327; Von Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art at Pasadena, 592 F.3d 954, 960

6 (9th Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 564 U.S. 1037 (2011).

7 Pleadings by self-represented litigants are liberally construed. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627

8 F.3d 338, 342 & n.7 (9th Cir. 2010) (liberal construction appropriate even post–Iqbal).

9 However, the court need not accept as true conclusory allegations, unreasonable

10 inferences, or unwarranted deductions of fact. Western Mining Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d

11 618, 624 (9th Cir. 1981). A formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action does

12 not suffice to state a claim. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-57 (2007);

13 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).

14 To state a claim on which relief may be granted, the plaintiff must allege enough

15 facts “to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A

16 claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court

17 to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”

18 Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. A pro se litigant is entitled to notice of the deficiencies in the

19 complaint and an opportunity to amend unless the complaint’s deficiencies could not be

20 cured by amendment. See Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1130-31; Cahill v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 80

21 F.3d 336, 339 (9th Cir. 1996).

22 II. DISCUSSION

23 The Complaint consists of three sentences. Compl. (ECF No. 1). The Complaint

24 appears to allege Defendant Arlene Bluth conspired to deprive Plaintiff of due process

25 rights by “fail[ing] to dismiss 100269/2023, causing unreasonable cost to the parties.”

26 See id. at ¶ 1. The Complaint provides no further information on Defendant’s identity,

27 Plaintiff’s relationship to Defendant, nor further information on the matter described as

28 100269/2023. See id. The Complaint consists of three sentences. See id.

1 A. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8

2 The Complaint does not contain a short and plain statement of a claim as required

3 by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. In order to give fair notice of the claims and the

4 grounds on which they rest, a plaintiff must allege with at least some degree of

5 particularity overt acts by specific defendants which support the claims. See Kimes v.

6 Stone, 84 F.3d 1121, 1129 (9th Cir. 1996). A review of Plaintiff’s Complaint reveals it

7 consists of “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements” of her causes of action and fails to

8 state a claim for relief. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.

9 B. Failure to State a Claim

10 The Complaint appears to allege a claim for conspiracy to interfere with civil rights

11 under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3). To state a cause of action under Section 1985(3), the

12 complaint must allege “(1) a conspiracy, (2) to deprive any person or a class of persons

13 of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws,

14 (3) an act by one of the conspirators in furtherance of the conspiracy, and (4) a personal

15 injury, property damage or a deprivation of any right or privilege of a citizen of the United

16 States.” Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629 F.3d 637, 641 (9th Cir. 1980) (citing Griffin v.

17 Breckenridge, 403 U.S. 88, 102-103 (1971)). Unlike 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which requires a

18 showing that a defendant acted under the color of state law, Section 1985(3) reaches

19 private conspiracies. Griffin, 403 U.S., at 641.

20 Plaintiff’s only allegation against Defendant is that she “conspired with individuals

21 in depriving due process rights… [by] fail[ing] to dismiss 100269/2023, causing

22 unreasonable cost to the parties.” Compl. at ¶ 1. Plaintiff’s allegation is conclusory and a

23 “threadbare recital of the elements” of his cause of action. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.

24 Further, it is unclear whether Defendant showed a “[racial] or class-based, invidiously

25 discriminatory animus,” behind her actions. See Gillespie, 629 F. 3d, at 641. Therefore,

26 the Court dismisses Plaintiff’s civil rights conspiracy cause of action with leave to amend

27 to the extent Plaintiff can allege additional facts to support his claim.

28 / / /

1 C. Leave to Amend

2 Although the Federal Rules adopt a flexible pleading policy, even a pro se

3 litigant’s complaint must give fair notice and state the elements of a claim plainly and

4 succinctly. Jones v. Community Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). In

5 light of Plaintiff’s pro se status, and because it is at least conceivable that Plaintiff could

6 allege additional facts to state claims under Section 1985(3), the Court finds it

7 appropriate to grant Plaintiff an opportunity to amend the Complaint. See Lopez, 203

8 F.3d at 1130-31 (indicating that prior to dismissal, the court is to tell the plaintiff of

9 deficiencies in the complaint and provide an opportunity to cure – if it appears at all

10 possible the defects can be corrected).

11 If Plaintiff elects to file an amended complaint, this new pleading shall allege facts

12 establishing the existence of federal jurisdiction and must contain a short and plain

13 statement of Plaintiff's claim. The allegations of the complaint must be set forth in

14 sequentially numbered paragraphs, with each paragraph number being one greater than

15 the one before, each paragraph having its own number, and no paragraph number being

16 repeated anywhere in the complaint. Each paragraph should be limited “to a single set of

17 circumstances” where possible. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b). Forms are available to help

18 plaintiffs organize their complaint in the proper way. They are available at the Clerk's

19 Office, 501 I Street, 4th Floor (Rm. 4-200), Sacramento, CA 95814, or online at

20 www.uscourts.gov/forms/pro-se-forms.

21 The amended complaint must not require the Court and the defendants to guess

22 at what is being alleged against whom. See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th

23 Cir. 1996) (affirming dismissal of a complaint where the district court was “literally

24 guessing as to what facts support the legal claims being asserted against certain

25 defendants”). The amended complaint must not require the Court to spend its time

26 “preparing the ‘short and plain statement’ which Rule 8 obligated plaintiffs to submit.” Id.

27 at 1180. The amended complaint must not require the Court and defendants to prepare

28 lengthy outlines “to determine who is being sued for what.” Id. at 1179.

1 Plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior complaint or other filing in

2 || order to make the amended complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that an

3 || amended complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. As a

4 || general rule, an amended complaint supersedes prior complaint(s), and once the

5 || amended complaint is filed and served, any previous complaint no longer serves any

6 || function in the case. Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 927 (9th Cir. 2012).

7 | Ul. ©CONCLUSION

8 In accordance with the above, IT |S ORDERED that:

9 1. Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is GRANTED;

10 2. Plaintiffs Complaint (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED with leave to amend; and

11 3. Plaintiff shall have 30 days from the date of this order to file an amended

12 complaint that complies with the instructions provided above. If Plaintiff

13 fails to timely comply with this order, the undersigned may recommend that

14 this action be dismissed.

15

16 | Dated: May 27, 2026 C i s \U

7 CHI SOO KIM

18 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

19 || 7, mill.0516.26.screening

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28