Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-01584/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-01584-5/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHANDRA KISHOR,

Plaintiff,

v.

PARVINA BEN JILLIAN, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 2:23-cv-01584-KJM-JDP (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

FINDING THAT THE FIRST AMENDED 

COMPLAINT FAILS TO STATE A 

COGNIZABLE CLAIM AND 

RECOMMENDING THAT THIS ACTION 

BE DISMISSED

ECF No. 19

OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN 

DAYS

Plaintiff, a state prisoner at California State Prison, Solano, brings this action alleging that 

defendants “simulated” a disease in his daughter. ECF No. 19 at 1. The allegations are frivolous,

and I recommend that this action be dismissed without leave to amend.

Screening Order

I. Screening and Pleading Requirements

A federal court must screen a prisoner’s complaint that seeks relief against a governmental 

entity, officer, or employee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must identify any cognizable 

claims and dismiss any portion of the complaint that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a 

Case 2:23-cv-01584-KJM-JDP Document 20 Filed 03/13/24 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

claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is 

immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b)(1), (2).

A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief, 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 

face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility standard does not 

require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 

662, 678 (2009). If the allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere 

possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not 

identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024, 

1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that 

give rise to an enforceable right to relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264 

n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (citations omitted). 

The court must construe a pro se litigant’s complaint liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 

U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). The court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s complaint “if it 

appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which 

would entitle him to relief.” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2017). 

However, “‘a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements 

of the claim that were not initially pled.’” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 

1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. Of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)).

II. Analysis

Plaintiff alleges that defendants “simulated” a disease in his daughter. ECF No. 19 at 3. 

Specifically, he appears to allege that they somehow created cystic fibrosis in her, a disease her 

non-European ancestry would not otherwise support. Id. This allegation is frivolous, and the 

remainder of the complaint fares no better. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989) (noting 

that the term “‘frivolous,’ when applied to a complaint, embraces not only the inarguable legal 

conclusion, but also the fanciful factual allegation”). Elsewhere, plaintiff alleges that defendant 

Jillian, a nurse assistant at Sutter General Hospital, staged a robbery in his home in an attempt to 

kill him and his daughter. ECF No. 19 at 5. He alleges that other, unidentified doctors and nurses 

Case 2:23-cv-01584-KJM-JDP Document 20 Filed 03/13/24 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

were complicit in this attempt. Id. This allegation is also frivolous and fanciful. In light of the 

frivolity of these allegations, I conclude that granting plaintiff further opportunities to amend is 

unwarranted.

Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that the amended complaint, ECF No. 19, be 

DISMISSED without leave to amend as frivolous and for failure to state a cognizable claim.

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.” Any response to the 

objections shall be served and filed within fourteen 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. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez 

v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 13, 2024 

JEREMY D. PETERSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:23-cv-01584-KJM-JDP Document 20 Filed 03/13/24 Page 3 of 3