The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 JAMES S. GRILL, Case No. 2:26-cv-00652-DC-CSK (PS)
12 Plaintiff,
13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
14 STATE OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL (ECF Nos. 3, 5)
RIGHTS DEPARTMENT, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
17
18 Plaintiff James S. Grill is representing himself in this action.1 Plaintiff initiated this
19 action on March 2, 2026 and applied for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”)
20 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (ECF Nos. 1, 2.) Because Plaintiff’s affidavit was unsigned
21 and incomplete, the Court denied Plaintiff’s IFP application without prejudice. 4/21/2026
22 Order (ECF No. 4). On April 30, 2026, Plaintiff filed a renewed IFP application. (ECF
23 No. 5.) Plaintiff also filed a First Amended Complaint on March 19, 2026. (ECF No. 3.)
24 For the reasons that follow, the Court recommends Plaintiff’s IFP application (ECF
25 No. 5) be DENIED, and the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) (ECF No. 3) be
26 DISMISSED without leave to amend.
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 I. MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
2 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) provides that the court may authorize the commencement,
3 prosecution or defense of any suit without prepayment of fees or security “by a person
4 who submits an affidavit stating the person is “unable to pay such fees or give security
5 therefor.” This affidavit is to include, among other things, a statement of all assets the
6 person possesses. Id. The IFP statute does not itself define what constitutes insufficient
7 assets. See Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 2015). In Escobedo,
8 the Ninth Circuit stated that an affidavit in support of an IFP application is sufficient
9 where it alleges that the affiant cannot pay court costs and still afford the necessities of
10 life. Id. “One need not be absolutely destitute to obtain benefits of the in forma pauperis
11 statute.” Id. Nonetheless, a party seeking IFP status must allege poverty “with some
12 particularity, definiteness and certainty.” Id. According to the United States Department
13 of Health and Human Services, the current poverty guideline for a household of one (not
14 residing in Alaska or Hawaii) is $15,960.00. See U.S. Dep’t Health & Human Services
15 (available at https://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty-guidelines).
16 Here, Plaintiff has made the required financial showing under 28 U.S.C.
17 § 1915(a). (See ECF No. 5.) However, the Court recommends Plaintiff’s IFP application
18 be denied because the action is facially frivolous or without merit. “‘A district court may
19 deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis at the outset if it appears from the face of the
20 proposed complaint that the action is frivolous or without merit.’” Minetti v. Port of
21 Seattle, 152 F.3d 1113, 1115 (9th Cir. 1998) (quoting Tripati v. First Nat. Bank & Tr., 821
22 F.2d 1368, 1370 (9th Cir. 1987)); see also McGee v. Dep’t of Child Support Servs., 584
23 Fed. App’x. 638 (9th Cir. 2014) (“[T]he district court did not abuse its discretion by
24 denying McGee's request to proceed IFP because it appears from the face of the
25 amended complaint that McGee's action is frivolous or without merit.”); Smart v. Heinze,
26 347 F.2d 114, 116 (9th Cir. 1965) (“It is the duty of the District Court to examine any
27 application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis to determine whether the proposed
28 proceeding has merit and if it appears that the proceeding is without merit, the court is
1 bound to deny a motion seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis.”). Because it
2 appears from the face of Plaintiff’s FAC that this action is frivolous or is without merit as
3 discussed in more detail below, the Court recommends Plaintiff’s IFP motion be denied.
4 II. SCREENING REQUIREMENT
5 Even if the Court were to grant Plaintiff’s IFP application, Plaintiff’s First Amended
6 Complaint warrants dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)’s required pre-answer
7 screening. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the court must screen every in forma
8 pauperis proceeding, and must order dismissal of the case if it is “frivolous or malicious,”
9 “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief against a
10 defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Lopez v. Smith,
11 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (2000) (en banc). A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an
12 arguable basis either in law or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). In
13 reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court accepts as true the factual
14 allegations contained in the complaint, unless they are clearly baseless or fanciful, and
15 construes those allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See id. at 326-27;
16 Von Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art at Pasadena, 592 F.3d 954, 960 (9th Cir.
17 2010), cert. denied, 564 U.S. 1037 (2011).
18 Pleadings by self-represented litigants are liberally construed. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627
19 F.3d 338, 342 & n.7 (9th Cir. 2010) (liberal construction appropriate even post-Iqbal).
20 However, the court need not accept as true conclusory allegations, unreasonable
21 inferences, or unwarranted deductions of fact. Western Mining Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d
22 618, 624 (9th Cir. 1981). A formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action does
23 not suffice to state a claim. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-57 (2007);
24 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). To state a claim on which relief may be
25 granted, the plaintiff must allege enough facts “to state a claim to relief that is plausible
26 on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff
27 pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the
28 defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
1 Upon dismissal of any claims, the court must tell a pro se plaintiff of a pleading’s
2 deficiencies and provide an opportunity to cure such defects. Garity v. APWU Nat'l Lab.
3 Org., 828 F.3d 848, 854 (9th Cir. 2016). However, if amendment would be futile, leave to
4 amend does not need to be provided. Lathus v. City of Huntington Beach, 56 F.4th 1238,
5 1243 (9th Cir. 2023).
6 III. THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
7 Plaintiff brings this Section 1983 action against Defendants State of California
8 Civil Rights Department, Heather Ferreira, and “Shristy, Defendants[’] Analyst II.” FAC
9 ¶¶ 11-12 (ECF No. 3). Plaintiff alleges he rented an apartment unit, detached by about
10 150 feet from his own residence, to Defendant Ferreira. Id. ¶ 14. Plaintiff hired a local
11 handyman to replace a faulty water pipe on his property. Id. ¶ 15. Plaintiff alleges
12 Defendant Ferreira falsely claimed that she was sexually harassed by the hired
13 contractor, that Plaintiff enabled the harassment to occur on his property, and that
14 Plaintiff threatened to retaliate if Ferreira complained. Id. ¶¶ 5, 15. Plaintiff alleges that
15 Defendants California Civil Rights Department and Shristy issued a “Notice of Filing of
16 Discrimination Complaint” charging Plaintiff with criminal violations based on Defendant
17 Ferreira’s false accusations.2 Id. ¶¶ 1, 11 18, 24. Plaintiff seeks an injunction barring
18 Defendants from prosecuting him for violations alleged in the Notice of Filing of
19 Discrimination Complaint, as well as declaratory judgments that Defendants’ actions
20 violated Plaintiff’s rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments. Id. at 7-8.
21 IV. DISCUSSION
22 Here, Plaintiff brings three purported causes of action against all Defendants:
23 (1) violation of Plaintiff’s rights under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment;
24 (2) violation of Plaintiff’s rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth
25 2 The FAC purports to incorporate by reference Exhibit B to the original Complaint,
26 which is the Notice of Filing of Discrimination Complaint. FAC ¶ 6. But because an
amended complaint supersedes any prior pleading, the FAC may not incorporate
27 exhibits from a superseded pleading. See E.D. Cal. Local Rule 22. Nonetheless, the
Court takes judicial notice of Exhibit B to the original Complaint (ECF No. 1) for
28 screening purposes.
1 Amendments; and (3) lack of qualified immunity. FAC ¶¶ 16-24. Qualified immunity is an
2 affirmative defense, and “[a] defense is not part of a plaintiff's properly pleaded
3 statement of his or her claim.” Rivet v. Regions Bank of Louisiana, 522 U.S. 470, 475
4 (1998). Accordingly, the Court will disregard the third “cause of action” alleging lack of
5 qualified immunity in its review of the FAC.
6 A. Pro Se Plaintiff Cannot Represent a Trust as Trustee
7 It appears Plaintiff also seeks to bring this action on behalf of the Sisters of St.
8 Patrick Revocable Trust. FAC ¶ 10. “A trustee may not represent a trust pro se in federal
9 court.” Sundby v. Marquee Funding Grp., Inc., 2022 WL 4826445, at *1 (9th Cir. Oct. 3,
10 2022) (citing C.E. Pope Equity Trust v. United States, 818 F.2d 696, 697 (9th Cir. 1987)).
11 Plaintiff may not bring this action on behalf of the Sisters of St. Patrick Revocable Trust
12 because Plaintiff is pro se. Accordingly, the Court will disregard the Sisters of St. Patrick
13 Revocable Trust in its review of the FAC.
14 B. Eleventh Amendment Immunity
15 Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant California Civil Rights Department fail
16 because they are barred by the Eleventh Amendment. Under the Eleventh Amendment,
17 the State of California, including its agencies, is generally immune from federal lawsuits.
18 See Sato v. Orange Cnty Dep't of Educ., 861 F.3d 923, 928 (9th Cir. 2017) (“It is well
19 established that agencies of the state are immune under the Eleventh Amendment from
20 private damages or suits for injunctive relief brought in federal court.”); Dittman v.
21 California, 191 F.3d 1020, 1025-26 (9th Cir. 1999) (“[Section] 1983 was not intended to
22 abrogate a State's Eleventh Amendment immunity.”); Whiting v. California C.R. Dep't,
23 2024 WL 4003177, at *3 (C.D. Cal. June 27, 2024) (“As to [the California Civil Rights
24 Department], the State of California is generally immune in federal lawsuits under the
25 Eleventh Amendment.”). Thus, because Defendant California Civil Rights Department is
26 immune from federal suit, Plaintiff’s claims against this defendant should be dismissed
27 without leave to amend.
28 / / /
1 C. Failure to State a Claim
2 Plaintiff’s FAC fails to state a claim against any defendant under Section 1983.
3 42 U.S.C. § 1983 “provides a cause of action for the deprivation of any rights, privileges,
4 or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States.” Wilder v.
5 Virginia Hosp. Ass'n, 496 U.S. 498, 508 (1990) (internal quotation marks omitted). To
6 state a cognizable Section 1983 claim, a plaintiff must allege the violation of a right
7 protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States, and that the alleged
8 deprivation was committed by a person who acted under color of state law. 42 U.S.C.
9 § 1983; see also Florer v. Congregation Pidyon Shevuyim, N.A., 639 F.3d 916, 921 (9th
10 Cir. 2011). An individual defendant is not liable on a civil rights claim unless the facts
11 establish the defendant's personal involvement in the constitutional deprivation or a
12 causal connection between the defendant's wrongful conduct and the alleged
13 constitutional deprivation. See Hansen v. Black, 885 F.2d 642, 645 (9th Cir. 1989);
14 Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743-44 (9th Cir. 1978).
15 Here, Plaintif's brief and conclusory allegations against Defendants do not suffice
16 to show unconstitutional conduct under Section 1983.
17 1. Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment Violation for the Deprivation of Due
18 Process
19 The procedural guarantees of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments’ Due
20 Process Clauses apply only when a constitutionally protected liberty or property interest
21 is at stake. See Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U.S. 651, 672-73 (1977). The Due Process
22 Clause of the Fifth Amendment is incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment. Id.
23 Here, however, the Fifth Amendment may not serve as a basis for Plaintiff's claim
24 because “the Fifth Amendment's due process clause only applies to the federal
25 government.” Bingue v. Prunchak, 512 F.3d 1169, 1174 (9th Cir. 2008). Accordingly,
26 Plaintiff fails to plead a cause of action against Defendants on the basis of the Fifth and
27 Fourteenth Amendments.
28 / / /
1 2. Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause
2 “The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment guarantees the right of an
3 accused in a criminal prosecution to be confronted with the witnesses against him.”
4 Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 678 (1986). The “Confrontation Clause does not
5 come into play until the initiation of criminal proceedings.” SEC v. Jerry T. O'Brien, Inc.,
6 467 U.S. 735, 742 (1984). Here, Plaintiff bases his claims on a “Notice of Filing of
7 Discrimination Complaint” prepared by the California Civil Rights Department. FAC ¶ 1.
8 Plaintiff has not alleged non-conclusory facts showing that he has been subjected to any
9 criminal charges or a conviction. Cf. id. ¶ 26 (“Defendants have pre-imposed criminal
10 actions, penalties and constitutional rights violations against Plaintiff and his Property.”).
11 To the extent his claims are based on an ongoing government civil or criminal
12 investigation, Plaintiff has not alleged any constitutional violation because government
13 investigations, standing alone, do not implicate the Sixth Amendment Confrontation
14 Clause. See SEC v. Jerry T. O'Brien, Inc., 467 U.S. at 742.
15 3. Private Actor
16 Plaintiff also fails to plead Section 1983 claims against Defendant Heather
17 Ferreira because the FAC’s allegations indicate Defendant Ferreira is a private actor.
18 See FAC ¶¶ 5, 12, 14. Generally, private parties do not act under color of state law.
19 Price v. Hawaii, 939 F.2d 702, 707-08 (9th Cir. 1991); Sutton v. Providence St. Joseph
20 Med. Ctr., 192 F.3d 826, 835 (9th Cir. 1999). However, a private party's action may be
21 “under color of state law” where there is “significant” state involvement in the action.
22 Franklin v. Fox, 312 F.3d 423, 444 (9th Cir. 2002) (citation omitted). “A plaintiff may
23 demonstrate joint action by proving the existence of a conspiracy or by showing that the
24 private party was a willful participant in joint action with the State or its agents.” Franklin
25 v. Fox, 312 F.3d 423, 445 (9th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
26 To prove a conspiracy between a state actor and a private actor, a plaintiff must show
27 “an agreement of meeting of the minds to violate constitutional rights.” Id. at 441 (internal
28 quotation marks and citation omitted).
1 Here, the FAC alleges generally that “Defendants” “acted under the color of law.”
2 FAC ¶¶ 3, 11. These conclusory allegations do not show a meeting of the minds
3 between Defendant Ferreira and state actors to violate Plaintiff’s constitutional rights.
4 Further, Plaintiff cannot establish joint action by alleging that the state defendants relied
5 on Defendant Ferreira’s false evidence to initiate an investigation. See Arnold v.
6 International Business Machines Corp., 637 F.2d 1350, 1357-58 (9th Cir. 1981) (person
7 who supplies inaccurate information that leads to arrest is not involved in joint activity
8 with state). Thus, Plaintiff fails to plead Section 1983 claims against Defendant Ferreira
9 because he has not alleged facts showing she acted under color of state law.
10 D. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8
11 The FAC does not contain a short and plain statement of a claim as required by
12 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. To give fair notice of the claims and the grounds on
13 which they rest, a plaintiff must allege with at least some degree of particularity overt
14 acts by specific defendants which support the claims. See Kimes v. Stone, 84 F.3d 1121,
15 1129 (9th Cir. 1996). As discussed above, Plaintiff fails to allege that the Defendants
16 engaged in any conduct that would support a claim under Section 1983.
17 Although the Federal Rules adopt a flexible pleading policy, even a pro se
18 litigant's complaint must give fair notice and state the elements of a claim plainly and
19 succinctly. Jones v. Community Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984).
20 Based on these deficiencies, the FAC is subject to dismissal. See McHenry v. Renne, 84
21 F.3d 1172, 1178-80 (9th Cir. 1996) (affirming dismissal of complaint where “one cannot
22 determine from the complaint who is being sued, for what relief, and on what theory, with
23 enough detail to guide discovery”).
24 E. Leave to Amend
25 In considering whether leave to amend should be granted, the Court finds that the
26 FAC is without merit and that Defendant California Civil Rights Department is immune
27 from suit. See generally FAC. Although Plaintiff has already amended his complaint
28 once, the FAC does not contain facts supporting any cognizable legal claim against
1 | Defendants. In light of the FAC’s deficiencies, granting leave to amend would be futile.
2 || The FAC should therefore be dismissed without leave to amend. See Lopez, 203 F.3d at
3 | 1130-31; Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105-06 (9th Cir. 1995).
V. CONCLUSION
5 Based upon the findings above, it is RECOMMENDED that:
6 1. Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 5) be DENIED;
7 2. Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 3) be DISMISSED without
8 leave to amend; and
9 3. The Clerk of the Court be directed to CLOSE this case.
10 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District
11 || Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within
12 | 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file
13 | written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. This document should
14 | be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any
15 || reply to the objections shall be served on all parties and filed with the Court within 14
16 | days after service of the objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time
17 || may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449,
18 | 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir. 1991).
19
20 | Dated: June 29, 2026 C i s
a1 CHI SOO KIM
99 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
23
24 | 8, gril.0652.26
25
26
27
28