Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00828/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00828-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TANYA McDANIEL,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE SECRETARIAT, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:15-cv-0828 GEB CKD PS

ORDER AND 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se and in forma pauperis. Plaintiff has filed a 

second amended complaint.1

The federal in forma pauperis statute authorizes federal courts to dismiss a case if the 

action is legally “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, 

or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(e)(2). 

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

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th 

Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an 

 

1

 Concurrent with the filing of the second amended complaint, plaintiff also filed a motion to 

amend. In light of the court’s prior order granting leave to amend, plaintiff’s motion will be 

denied as moot.

Case 2:15-cv-00828-GEB-CKD Document 12 Filed 07/23/15 Page 1 of 3
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

2

indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 

490 U.S. at 327. 

In order to avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more than 

“naked assertions,” “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause 

of action.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-557 (2007). In other words, 

“[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory 

statements do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). Furthermore, a claim 

upon which the court can grant relief has facial plausibility. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A 

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

the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 

at 1949. When considering whether a complaint states a claim upon which relief can be granted, 

the court must accept the allegations as true, Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007), 

and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, see Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 

U.S. 232, 236 (1974). 

Plaintiff has now filed three complaints in this action. Plaintiff alleges a variety of claims

against private individuals arising out of a receipt by plaintiff of an email discussing weight loss. 

Plaintiff claims defendants violated her civil rights. Plaintiff was previously advised of the 

standards for stating a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and in particular that plaintiff must allege 

that defendants were acting under color of state law at the time the complained of act was 

committed. 42 U.S.C. § 1983; see West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). The second amended 

complaint does not cure the pleading deficiencies evident in the original complaint or the first 

amended complaint. Plaintiff was previously warned that if a second amended complaint did not 

properly allege that defendants are state actors subject to liability under section 1983, the court 

would recommend that the action be dismissed. In the amended complaint, plaintiff’s only basis 

for claiming that defendants are state actors is that some of defendant’s customers are 

governmental agencies. These allegations are insufficient to state a claim pursuant to section 

1983. Despite repeated opportunities to cure the deficiencies in his complaints, plaintiff has 

failed to do so. Moreover, it appears that further amendment would be futile.

Case 2:15-cv-00828-GEB-CKD Document 12 Filed 07/23/15 Page 2 of 3
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

3

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT plaintiff’s motion to amend (ECF No. 

10) is denied as moot; and

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen 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.” 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).

Dated: July 23, 2015

4 mcdaniel0828.57

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:15-cv-00828-GEB-CKD Document 12 Filed 07/23/15 Page 3 of 3