Rivera

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 MAYA RIVER’S, No. 2:23-cv-2723 DAD AC PS

12 Plaintiff,

13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

14 BERTHA ISABEL RIVERA,

15 Defendant.

16

17 Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se. Pre-trial proceedings are referred to the

18 undersigned by E.D. Cal. R. 302(c)(21). Plaintiff filed a request for leave to proceed in forma

19 pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and has submitted the affidavit required by that

20 statute. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). The motion to proceed IFP will therefore be granted.

21 I. Screening

22 A. Legal Standard

23 A determination that a plaintiff qualifies financially for in forma pauperis status does not

24 complete the inquiry required by the statute. The federal IFP statute requires federal courts to

25 dismiss a case if the action is legally “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which

26 relief may be granted or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.

27 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Plaintiff must assist the court in determining whether the complaint is

28 frivolous, by drafting the complaint so that it complies with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

1 (“Fed. R. Civ. P.”). Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the complaint must contain (1) a

2 “short and plain statement” of the basis for federal jurisdiction (that is, the reason the case is filed

3 in this court, rather than in a state court), (2) a short and plain statement showing that plaintiff is

4 entitled to relief (that is, who harmed the plaintiff, and in what way), and (3) a demand for the

5 relief sought. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Plaintiff’s claims must be set forth simply, concisely and

6 directly. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1).

7 A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.

8 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the

9 court will (1) accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in the complaint, unless they

10 are clearly baseless or fanciful, (2) construe those allegations in the light most favorable to the

11 plaintiff, and (3) resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor. See Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327; Von

12 Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art at Pasadena, 592 F.3d 954, 960 (9th Cir. 2010), cert.

13 denied, 564 U.S. 1037 (2011).

14 The court applies the same rules of construction in determining whether the complaint

15 states a claim on which relief can be granted. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (court

16 must accept the allegations as true); Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974) (court must

17 construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff). Pro se pleadings are held to a

18 less stringent standard than those drafted by lawyers. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520

19 (1972). However, the court need not accept as true conclusory allegations, unreasonable

20 inferences, or unwarranted deductions of fact. Western Mining Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d 618,

21 624 (9th Cir. 1981). A formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action does not suffice

22 to state a claim. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-57 (2007); Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

23 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). To state a claim on which relief may be granted, the plaintiff must

24 allege enough facts “to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at

25 570. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the

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

27 Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.

28 A pro se litigant is entitled to notice of the deficiencies in the complaint and an

1 opportunity to amend, unless the complaint’s deficiencies could not be cured by amendment. See

2 Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987), superseded on other grounds by statute as

3 stated in Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir.2000)) (en banc).

4 B. The Complaint

5 Plaintiff’s 184-page complaint consists of a form complaint and a series of seemingly

6 unrelated attachments. ECF No. 1 at 1-184. The attachments include, for example, property

7 deeds (ECF No. 1 at 26), banking receipts (id. at 57), police dispatch summaries from various

8 events (id. at 71), medical records (id. at 78), and parking citations (id. at 102), among others.

9 Under the “Statement of Claim” section of the form complaint, plaintiff writes, “I am certain; I

10 have not committed crime. However, insidious ‘1799, 5150, 5150.5’ on 8/29/2023; has been the

11 closest to conversion therapy I have ever been. I love this state, this country, I work in Social

12 Servies since 2016, post graduating C.S.U.S. I Deny and deflect ALL allegations.” Id. at 5.

13 Next to the “Amount in Controversy” section of the form complaint, plaintiff wrote “Real Estate

14 Property Plus Damages and Distress, Retaliation Comp.” and under the section, wrote “3 years

15 worth, of ‘Betterment’ property. In addition, social retaliation, defamation, and anguish. 90% of

16 ‘jacket’ insurance from chief’s officers involved.” Id. at 5. Plaintiff identifies the basis for

17 federal jurisdiction as “Race and Ethnicity Biases, LGBTQIA+ Violation Rights, ADA Violation

18 Rights, Refusal to Admit ‘Unlawful Detainer Response” Abuse of Power ‘Social Bullying.” Id.

19 at 4.

20 C. Analysis

21 The complaint does not contain facts supporting any cognizable legal claim against any

22 defendant. The court finds that the complaint consists entirely of incoherent statements with no

23 basis in law, and no plausible supporting facts. See ECF No. 1. The contents of the complaint

24 are sufficiently unintelligible to make it clear that leave to amend in this case would not be

25 fruitful. The undersigned will therefore recommend that the complaint be dismissed without

26 leave to amend.

27 IV. Pro Se Plaintiff’s Summary

28 Your motions to proceed without paying the filing fees are being granted, and you do not

1 | have to pay the filing fee. However, the Magistrate Judge has determined that your complaint

2 || cannot be served because it does not state any legal claim that the court can help with. The

3 || Magistrate Judge is recommending that your case be dismissed. You have 21 days to file an

4 || objection to this recommendation.

5 V. Conclusion

6 Tn accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s application to

7 || proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is GRANTED.

8 Further, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that all claims against all defendants should

9 || be DISMISSED.

10 These findings and recommendations are 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 twenty-one days

12 | after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections

13 || with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings

14 | and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified

15 || time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153

16 | (9th Cir. 1991).

17 IT IS SO ORDERED.

18 | DATED: July 20, 2026 ~

19 AMttun—Clone_

ALLISON CLAIRE

20 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28