Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01114/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01114-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TANYA GRACE McDANIEL,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE UNITED STATES, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:15-cv-1114 MCE DAD PS

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiff Tanya McDaniel is proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was referred to 

the undersigned in accordance with Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis application makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(a)(1). However, a determination that a plaintiff qualifies financially for in forma pauperis 

status does not complete the inquiry required by the statute. “‘A district court may deny leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis at the outset if it appears from the face of the proposed complaint that 

the action is frivolous or without merit.’” Minetti v. Port of Seattle, 152 F.3d 1113, 1115 (9th 

Cir. 1998) (quoting Tripati v. First Nat. Bank & Trust, 821 F.2d 1368, 1370 (9th Cir. 1987)). See

also Smart v. Heinze, 347 F.2d 114, 116 (9th Cir. 1965) (“It is the duty of the District Court to 

examine any application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis to determine whether the 

proposed proceeding has merit and if it appears that the proceeding is without merit, the court is 

bound to deny a motion seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis.”). 

Case 2:15-cv-01114-MCE-DAD Document 3 Filed 09/28/15 Page 1 of 4
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

Moreover, the court must dismiss an in forma pauperis case at any time if the allegation of 

poverty is found to be untrue or if it is determined that the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to 

state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against an immune 

defendant. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). A complaint is legally frivolous when it lacks an 

arguable basis 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). Under this standard, a court must dismiss a 

complaint as frivolous where it is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory or where the 

factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).

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

state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 

570 (2007). In considering whether a complaint states a cognizable claim, the court accepts as 

true the material allegations in the complaint and construes the allegations in the light most 

favorable to the plaintiff. Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984); Hosp. Bldg. Co. v. 

Trustees of Rex Hosp., 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976); Love v. United States, 915 F.2d 1242, 1245 

(9th Cir. 1989). Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by 

lawyers. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). However, the court need not accept as true 

conclusory allegations, unreasonable inferences, or unwarranted deductions of fact. Western 

Mining Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d 618, 624 (9th Cir. 1981).

The minimum requirements for a civil complaint in federal court are as follows:

A pleading which sets forth a claim for relief . . . shall contain (1) a 

short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the court’s 

jurisdiction depends . . . , (2) a short and plain statement of the 

claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and (3) a demand 

for judgment for the relief the pleader seeks.

FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a).

Here, plaintiff’s complaint is deficient in at least two respects. First, the complaint fails to 

contain a short and plain statement of a claim showing that plaintiff is entitled to relief. In this 

regard, in the complaint’s “FACTS,” section plaintiff alleges as follows. “On or before 

November 22, 2014,” defendant “LC Channel,” was “[h]osting terrorist conversations . . . . 

[d]eclaring a Scandalous game of sorts that is not a game; is in fact terrorism.” (Compl. (Dkt. No. 

Case 2:15-cv-01114-MCE-DAD Document 3 Filed 09/28/15 Page 2 of 4
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

1) at 3.) Plaintiff has “been extremely emotionally and mentally; socially; and otherwise abused 

from such Scandal.” (Id.) “Plaintiff has recorded evidence of such terrorist verbage (sic); 

declaring holy wars and trying so called ‘game.’” (Id.) Defendant also made “references to 

spying on citizens and violating their privacy rights,” as well as “Nazi’s and Isis.” (Id.) Based on 

these allegations, plaintiff seeks $1,500,000,000,000 in “damages” and $3,300,000,000,000,000 

in punitive damages. (Id. at 6.) 

Although the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure adopt a flexible pleading policy, a 

complaint must give the defendant fair notice of the plaintiff’s claims and must allege facts that 

state the elements of each claim plainly and succinctly. FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a)(2); Jones v. 

Community Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). “A pleading that offers ‘labels 

and conclusions’ or ‘a formulaic recitation of the elements of cause of action will not do.’ Nor 

does a complaint suffice if it tenders ‘naked assertions’ devoid of ‘further factual 

enhancements.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.662, 678 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 

557. A plaintiff must allege with at least some degree of particularity overt acts which the 

defendants engaged in that support the plaintiff’s claims. Jones, 733 F.2d at 649.

Second, the complaint purports to assert causes of action for the intentional infliction of 

emotional distress, harassment, negligence and treason, all pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. 

However, to state a cognizable claim under § 1983, “a plaintiff must allege the violation of a right 

secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States . . . .” West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48

(1988). “To the extent that the violation of a state law amounts to the deprivation of a statecreated interest that reaches beyond that guaranteed by the federal Constitution, Section 1983 

offers no redress.” Sweaney v. Ada Cnty., Idaho, 119 F.3d 1385, 1391 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting 

Lovell v. Poway Unified School Dist., 90 F.3d 367, 370 (9th Cir. 1996)). Moreover, the 

undersigned notes that “no private right of action exists for the crime of treason . . . .” Rodriguez 

v. Doe, No. 3:12-cv-0663-JAG, 2013 WL 1561012, at *5 (E.D. Va. Apr. 12, 2013).

For all of the reasons set forth above, plaintiff’s complaint should therefore be dismissed.

/////

/////

Case 2:15-cv-01114-MCE-DAD Document 3 Filed 09/28/15 Page 3 of 4
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

4

LEAVE TO AMEND

The undersigned has carefully considered whether plaintiff may amend her pleading to 

state a meritorious claim over which the court would have subject matter jurisdiction. “Valid 

reasons for denying leave to amend include undue delay, bad faith, prejudice, and futility.” 

California Architectural Bldg. Prod. v. Franciscan Ceramics, 818 F.2d 1466, 1472 (9th Cir. 1988). 

See also Klamath-Lake Pharm. Ass’n v. Klamath Med. Serv. Bureau, 701 F.2d 1276, 1293 (9th 

Cir. 1983) (holding that while leave to amend shall be freely given, the court does not have to 

allow futile amendments). In light of the deficiencies noted above, and the nature of plaintiff’s 

allegations, the undersigned finds that it would be futile to grant plaintiff leave to amend in this 

case.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Plaintiff’s May 22, 2015 application to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. No. 2) 

be denied;

2. Plaintiff’s May 22, 2015 complaint (Dkt. No. 1) be dismissed without leave to 

amend; and

3. This action be dismissed.

These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen (14) 

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written 

objections with the court. A document containing objections should be titled “Objections to 

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file 

objections within the specified time may, under certain circumstances, waive the right to appeal 

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

Dated: September 25, 2015

DAD:6

Ddad1\orders.pro se\mcdaniel1114.ifp.den.f&rs.docx

Case 2:15-cv-01114-MCE-DAD Document 3 Filed 09/28/15 Page 4 of 4