Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01830/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01830-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES FORDJOUR,

Plaintiff,

v.

JAMES HARTLEY, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:07-cv-01830-AWI-SKO PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING DISMIS SAL OF

PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS

OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN 30 DAYS

(Doc. 9)

Plaintiff Charles Fordjour (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is in the custody of the

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) and is currently incarcerated at

Yuba County Jail in Marysville, California. However, the events described in Plaintiff’s complaint

took place while Plaintiff was incarcerated at several other detention facilities. Plaintiff is suing

under section 1983 for the violation of his constitutional rights stemming from an alleged conspiracy

to murder Plaintiff and alleged illegal government experiments conducted on Plaintiff without his

consent. Plaintiff names more than 30 individuals and organizations as defendants. Forthe reasons

set forth below, the Court recommends that this action be dismissed without leave to amend.

I. Screening Requirement

The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a

governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The

Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally

“frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek

1

Case 1:07-cv-01830-AWI-SKO Document 20 Filed 07/16/10 Page 1 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). 

“Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall

dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action or appeal . . . fails to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

In determining whether a complaint fails to state a claim, the Court uses the same pleading

standard used under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). Under Rule 8(a), a complaint must

contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.

R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). “[T]he pleading standard Rule 8 announces does not require ‘detailed factual

allegations,’ but it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me

accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v.

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). “[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter,

accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550

U.S. at 570). “[A] complaint [that] pleads facts that are ‘merely consistent with’ a defendant’s

liability . . . ‘stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief.’” Id.

(quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557). Further, although a court must accept as true all factual

allegations contained in a complaint, a court need not accept a plaintiff’s legal conclusions as true. 

Id. “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory

statements, do not suffice.” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).

II. Background

A. Procedural Background

Plaintiff filed the original complaint in this action on December 17, 2007. (Doc. #1.) The

Court screened Plaintiff’s original complaint on June 24, 2008. (Doc. #7.) The Court dismissed

Plaintiff’s complaint for failing to state any claims and granted Plaintiff leave to file an amended

complaint. Plaintiff filed his first amended complaint on July 25, 2008. (Doc. #9.) This action

proceeds on Plaintiff’s first amended complaint.

B. Factual Background

Plaintiff’s first amended complaint consists of a confusing narrative chronicling Plaintiff’s

belief that prison officials conspired to murder Plaintiff and conduct illegal government experiments

2

Case 1:07-cv-01830-AWI-SKO Document 20 Filed 07/16/10 Page 2 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

on him. Plaintiff names more than 30 individuals and organizations as Defendants. The persons and

groups named as Defendants range from correctional officers, wardens, district attorneys, sheriffs,

medical personnel, engineers, the California Corrections Peace Officers Association, and a reality

television show identified as “All the Way Live DBA XYZ Corporation.” (First Am. Compl. 3:17-

5:14, ECF No. 9. )

1

Plaintiff vaguely alleges that he was unlawfully arrested on December 17, 2006 for a parole

violation and was transported to San Quentin State Prison (“San Quentin”). Plaintiff claims that

Defendant Robert L. Ayers, the associate deputy warden at San Quentin, issued “an illegal

memorandum and illegal deathwarrant to have plaintiff Fordjour kill/murdered[sic]for filing CDCR

602 grievances complaints[sic] against CDCR officers Fitts, McNeal, and Snider.” (First Am.

Compl. 8:11-16, ECF No. 9.) On July 11, 2007 Plaintiff was transferred from San Quentin to

Avenal State Prison (“ASP”). The “illegal death warrant” allegedly followed Plaintiff to ASP. 

Plaintiff was allegedly sent to ASP to be murdered and the “CDCR administration are been[sic] paid

to watch the murder on video.” (First Am. Compl. 8:21-26, ECF No. 9.) Plaintiff claims that

various officials at ASP reviewed the death warrant and made various updates to it. Plaintiff claims

that he “was subjected to daily attempted murder and conspiracy to commit murder since from[sic]

July 11, 2007 through April 15, 2008.” (First Am. Compl. 9:26-28, ECF No. 9.) Plaintiff explains

that Defendants “improperly and intentionally falsified the mental health records to make Plaintiff

a mental patient . . . to cover-up the murder plot to murder Plaintiff.” (First Am. Compl. 10:9-13,

ECF No. 9.) Plaintiff claims that CDCR administration “hand-picked inmates and groups of inmates

promised ransome[sic] money of $10,000.00.” (First Am. Compl. 12:7-10, ECF No. 9.)

Plaintiff also claims that Defendants conducted “illegal governmental experiments” on

Plaintiff at Coalinga Regional Medical Center. (First Am. Compl. 14:3-10, ECF No. 9.) Plaintiff

claims that doctors and engineers subjected Plaintiff to several tests, such as “blood test every two

hours, CT scans of his head, several IV’s[sic], MRI scans, MRI head scans, nuclear stress test with

Citations to Plaintiff’s complaint refer to the page numbers of his complaint as it was electronically

1

docketed. The page numbers used by Plaintiff differ from the pages numbers of the complaint as it was

electronically docketed.

3

Case 1:07-cv-01830-AWI-SKO Document 20 Filed 07/16/10 Page 3 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

acceleration of the heart by chemical means.” (First Am. Compl. 13:21-27.) Plaintiff claims that

the tests were done without his consent. He further claims that the “illegal government experiments”

caused “Plaintiff permanent and irreparable injuries as a cyborg, similar to lobotomy, torture by

electronic stimulation, erasing of brain memory byelectronic means and medium, poison in food and

IV’s injections. . . .” (First Am. Compl. 19:23-28.)

Plaintiff also contends that Defendants gave him a hearing aid that has video recording

capabilities and has been recording all of Plaintiff’s movements. (First Am. Compl. 16:8-13.) 

Plaintiff makes further confusing allegations with respect to the FBI’s “joint participation” with

Defendants, as well as the participation of a reality television show called “All the Way Out Live.” 

(First Am. Compl. 17:26-28.) The Court is unable to comprehend Plaintiff’s allegations regarding

the FBI and “All the Way Out Live.” Plaintiff contends that the reality television show violated his

right to privacy by "capitalize[sic] on his illegal governmental cyborg effects.” (First Am. Compl.

21:25-28.)

III. Discussion

Plaintiff claims that his constitutional rights were violated when prison officials conspired

to murder Plaintiff by issuing an “illegal death warrant” and promising other inmates a ransom of

$10,000 for Plaintiff’s death. Plaintiff further alleges that he was subjected to “illegal government

experiments” that were somehow cyborg-related and erased Plaintiff’s memory. Plaintiff also

alleges that his privacy rights were violated when a reality television show recorded the

government’s illegal cyborg-related activities. 

“[A] court may dismiss a claim as factually frivolous only if the facts alleged are ‘clearly

baseless’ . . . a category encompassing allegations that are fanciful, . . . fantastic, . . . and delusional. 

Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992) (internal citations and quotations omitted). “[A]

finding of factual frivolousness is appropriate when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational

or the wholly incredible, whether or not there are judicially noticeable facts available to contradict

them.” Id. at 33.

The Court finds that Plaintiff’s factual allegations are frivolous. Plaintiff’s allegations

regarding the illegal death warrant, the $10,000 bounty on his head, illegal government cyborg

4

Case 1:07-cv-01830-AWI-SKO Document 20 Filed 07/16/10 Page 4 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

experiments, video-recording hearing-aids, and the realitytelevision programs are fanciful, fantastic,

and delusional. The frivolousness of Plaintiff’s claims are further evidenced by the sheer number

of Defendants that Plaintiff is attempting to sue and the amount of damages he claims. Plaintiff

seeks $900 billion in damages from more than 30 individuals and organizations. Plaintiff attempts

to hold various sheriffs and district attorneys liable for their failure to believe Plaintiff’s allegations

and their failure to investigate his complaints.

Further, the Court finds that the deficiencies in Plaintiff’s complaint are not capable of being

cured by granting further leave to amend. The Court granted Plaintiff leave to amend after issuing

its first screening order. The first screening order described Plaintiff’s original complaint as

“rambling statements that charge various individuals with a conspiracy to murder plaintiff.” (Order

Dismissing Compl. With Leave To File An Am. Compl. 1:21-22, ECF No. 7.) The Court informed

Plaintiff that his allegations were “vague and conclusory,” and as a result, did not comply with the

pleading standard set forth by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2). (Order Dismissing Compl.

2:12-14, ECF No. 7.) Plaintiff’s amended complaint did nothing to meaningfully supplement his

vague and conclusory allegations. 

For the reasons set forth herein, the Court will recommend that Plaintiff’s complaint be

dismissed without leave to amend. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2007)

(recognizing longstanding rule that leave to amend should be granted even if no request to amend

was made unless the court determines that the pleading could not possibly be cured by the allegation

of other facts); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1261 (9th Cir. 1992)(dismissal with prejudice

upheld where court had instructed plaintiff regarding deficiencies in prior order dismissing claim

with leave to amend); Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987) (pro se litigant must be

given leave to amend his or her complaint unless it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the

complaint could not be cured by amendment).

IV. Conclusion and Order

The Court finds that Plaintiff’s complaint should be dismissed because his claims are

frivolous. The Court further finds that the deficiencies in Plaintiff’s claims cannot be cured by

granting further leave to amend.

5

Case 1:07-cv-01830-AWI-SKO Document 20 Filed 07/16/10 Page 5 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s first amended complaint be

DISMISSED, without leave to amend.

These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within thirty (30)

days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections

shall be served and filed within ten (10) days after service of the objections. The parties are advised

that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District

Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 15, 2010 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

ie14hj UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

6

Case 1:07-cv-01830-AWI-SKO Document 20 Filed 07/16/10 Page 6 of 6