Opinion

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 RAJ SINGH, No. 2:26-cv-02649-TLN-SCR

12 Plaintiff,

13 v. ORDER

14 JEREMY JOHNSON, et al.,

15 Defendants.

16

17 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this action, and accordingly the matter was referred to the

18 undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21). Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to proceed

19 in forma pauperis (“IFP”) (ECF No. 2), which the Court will deny as it fails to provide adequate

20 information. The Court has also screened the complaint pursuant to its screening function under

21 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). For the reasons provided below, the Court finds Plaintiff’s complaint is

22 legally deficient and will grant Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint.

23 I. Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

24 The motion makes an insufficient showing to proceed IFP. The Ninth Circuit has

25 recognized “one need not be absolutely destitute to obtain benefits” of the IFP statute. Escobedo

26 v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 2015). However, “a plaintiff seeking IFP status must

27 allege poverty with some particularity, definiteness and certainty.” Id. (internal citation and

28 quotation omitted). Plaintiff has refused to answer nearly every question on the AO 240 standard

1 IFP form. Plaintiff has crossed out and written “N/A” across all questions concerning income.

2 ECF No. 2 at 1. Plaintiff has similarly written “N/A” in response to all questions concerning his

3 assets and monthly expenses. Plaintiff also writes on the form that he is disabled and

4 unemployed. If Plaintiff intends his “N/A” response to indicate that his income is zero and that

5 he has no assets, then he shall clearly so state. It may be that Plaintiff qualifies to proceed IFP,

6 but that cannot be determined from the little information provided. Plaintiff’s motion will

7 therefore be denied. However, Plaintiff may, if he chooses, file a renewed motion to proceed IFP.

8 If he does so, Plaintiff shall take care to fully complete the form, including listing of any income

9 from all sources, monthly expenses, and assets.

10 II. Screening

11 A. Legal Standard

12 The federal IFP statute requires federal courts to dismiss a case if the action is legally

13 “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks

14 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). In

15 reviewing the complaint, the Court is guided by the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil

16 Procedure.

17 Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the complaint must contain (1) a “short and

18 plain statement” of the basis for federal jurisdiction (that is, the reason the case is filed in this

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

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

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

22 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6 less stringent standard than those drafted by lawyers. Erickson, 551 U.S. at 94. However, the

7 court need not accept as true legal conclusions, even if cast as factual allegations. See Moss v.

8 U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). A formulaic recitation of the elements of

9 a cause of action does not suffice to state a claim. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,

10 555-57 (2007); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).

11 To state a claim on which relief may be granted, the plaintiff must allege enough facts “to

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

13 facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the

14 reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at

15 678. A pro se litigant is entitled to notice of the deficiencies in the complaint and an opportunity

16 to amend, unless the complaint’s deficiencies could not be cured by amendment. See Akhtar v.

17 Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 1213 (9th Cir. 2012).

18 B. The Complaint

19 Plaintiff’s complaint names three Defendants – an individual, a clinic, and Walgreens.

20 ECF No. 1 at 2-3. Plaintiff asserts that there is federal question jurisdiction, but does not list a

21 federal statute or constitutional provision that forms the basis for his assertion. Id. at 4. Instead,

22 Plaintiff claims that Defendants accept federal grant money without providing proper services.

23 Id. Plaintiff’s entire factual statement is: “Defendants refused to provide proper treatment, did

24 not provide rehabilitation and refused to accommodate disability. They did not provide anti-

25 biotics, thus, Plaintiff was about to die and ended up in emergencies.” Id. at 5. Plaintiff seeks

26 $100 million in damages. Id. at 6.

27 C. Analysis

28 The complaint fails to state a claim or to put Defendants adequately on notice of the

1 claims against them. The allegations are conclusory. There are no dates pled or description of

2 the facts at issue, just the conclusions that Defendants “do not provide proper treatment” and

3 refused to accommodate. There are no clearly delineated claims or causes of action. A formulaic

4 recitation of the elements of a cause of action does not suffice to state a claim. Bell Atlantic

5 Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-57 (2007); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). To

6 state a claim on which relief may be granted, the plaintiff must allege enough facts “to state a

7 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A claim has facial

8 plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable

9 inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.

10 The in forma pauperis statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) provides that this Court “shall dismiss

11 the case at any time” if it determines that the action is “frivolous or malicious” or fails to state a

12 claim on which relief may be granted. As discussed above, the Court has determined that

13 Plaintiff has failed to state a federal claim. However, Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and a pro se

14 litigant should be given leave to amend unless it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies cannot be

15 cured by amendment. Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 1212 (9th Cir. 2012). Given the brevity

16 and vagueness of the allegations, the Court cannot find at this time that leave to amend would be

17 futile. The Court will allow leave to amend.

18 III. Amending the Complaint

19 If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, the amended complaint must contain a short

20 and plain statement of Plaintiff’s claims. The amended complaint shall be captioned “first

21 amended complaint”. The allegations of the complaint must be set forth in sequentially numbered

22 paragraphs, with each paragraph number being one greater than the one before, each paragraph

23 having its own number, and no paragraph number being repeated anywhere in the complaint.

24 Each paragraph should be limited “to a single set of circumstances” where possible. Rule 10(b).

25 As noted above, forms are available to help plaintiffs organize their complaint in the proper way.

26 They are available at the Clerk’s Office, 501 I Street, 4th Floor (Rm. 4-200), Sacramento, CA

27 95814, or online at www.uscourts.gov/forms/pro-se-forms.

28 The amended complaint must not force the Court or the Defendant to guess at what is

1 being alleged against whom. See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177-80 (9th Cir. 1996)

2 (affirming dismissal of a complaint where the district court was “literally guessing as to what

3 facts support the legal claims being asserted against certain defendants”). Also, the amended

4 complaint must not refer to a prior pleading in order to make plaintiff’s amended complaint

5 complete. An amended complaint must be complete in itself without reference to any prior

6 pleading. Local Rule 220. This is because, as a general rule, an amended complaint supersedes

7 the original complaint. See Pacific Bell Tel. Co. v. Linkline Communications, Inc., 555 U.S. 438,

8 456 n.4 (2009) (“[n]ormally, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint”) (citing 6

9 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 1476, pp. 556-57 (2d ed. 1990)).

10 Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original complaint, each claim and the involvement

11 of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged.

12 Plaintiff’s amended complaint must address the issues set forth herein. Plaintiff must

13 clearly allege a jurisdictional basis for his claims. Plaintiff must set forth clearly delineated

14 claims or causes of action. Plaintiff must allege sufficient factual content in support of his claims

15 to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. Plaintiff should endeavor to provide specifics

16 as to the who, what, where, when, and why of his allegations.

17 IV. Conclusion

18 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

19 1. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is DENIED.

20 2. Plaintiff may file a renewed motion to proceed IFP that addresses the issues set forth

21 herein within 21 days of the date of this Order, and that fully answers the questions on

22 the AO 240 form.

23 3. Alternatively, if Plaintiff does not wish to file a renewed motion for IFP, Plaintiff may pay

24 the filing fee.

25 4. If Plaintiff does not file a renewed motion or pay the filing fee within 21 days, the Court

26 will recommend that this action be dismissed without prejudice.

27 5. If Plaintiff does file a renewed motion or pay the filing fee, Plaintiff shall also file an

28 amended complaint within 30 days of the date of this Order.

1 6. Alternatively, if Plaintiff longer wishes to pursue this action, Plaintiff may file a notice

2 of voluntary dismissal of this action pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil

3 Procedure.

4 | DATED: August 13, 2026.

; .

6 SEAN C. RIORDAN

, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

9

10

1]

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28