Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-00332/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-00332-0/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 

DERRICK JEROME LEWIS, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

WELLSPACE HEALTH, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:20-cv-00332 JAM AC PS 

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

 Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was referred to the undersigned 

by E.D. Cal. R. 302(c)(21). Plaintiff has filed a request for leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, and has submitted the affidavit required by that 

statute. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). The motion to proceed IFP will therefore be granted. 

I. SCREENING 

 A determination that a plaintiff qualifies financially for in forma pauperis status does not 

complete the inquiry required by the statute. The federal IFP statute requires 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). Plaintiff must assist the court in determining whether or not the 

complaint is frivolous, by drafting the complaint so that it complies with the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure (“Fed. R. Civ. P.”). Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the complaint 

Case 2:20-cv-00332-JAM-AC Document 3 Filed 03/18/20 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 

must contain (1) a “short and plain statement” of the basis for federal jurisdiction (that is, the 

reason the case is filed in this court, rather than in a state court), (2) a short and plain statement 

showing that plaintiff is entitled to relief (that is, who harmed the plaintiff, and in what way), and 

(3) a demand for the relief sought. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Plaintiff’s claims must be set forth 

simply, concisely and directly. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1). 

 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). In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff). 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). A formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action does not suffice 

to state a claim. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-57 (2007); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 

556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). 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.” 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, 556 U.S. at 678. 

A pro se litigant is entitled to notice of the deficiencies in the complaint and an 

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

Case 2:20-cv-00332-JAM-AC Document 3 Filed 03/18/20 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 

Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987), superseded on other grounds by statute as 

stated in Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir.2000)) (en banc). 

II. THE COMPLAINT 

 The complaint states that plaintiff seeks relief for copyright infringements, Fourteenth 

Amendment violations, patent violations, antitrust and consumer credit violations, identity theft, 

and “government agency.” ECF No. 1 at 4. Plaintiff alleges that while he was being monitored at 

Wellspace Health his phone became controlled by an Xfinity internet account and hooked up to 

an office printer, and the phone account was switched without his consent. ECF No. 1 at 5. 

Plaintiff alleges that Wellspace employees, the Department of Healthcare Services, and Westcare 

are monitoring him, and are fraudulently giving false information about clients so they can 

receive Medi-Cal benefits. Id. Plaintiff alleges that bank accounts were opened, vehicles were 

purchased, homes were purchased, businesses were developed and sold, and he was not in control 

of his own life. Id. He has suffered homelessness and insomnia as a result, and seeks damages in 

the form of loss of earnings and pain and suffering. Id. at 6. 

III. ANALYSIS 

 The complaint is vague and conclusory and does not contain facts supporting any 

cognizable legal claim against any defendant. Accordingly, the complaint must be dismissed for 

failure to state a claim. The court finds that the complaint consists entirely of fanciful and 

delusional allegations. The facts plaintiff alleges are not clearly tied to his legal claims, and the 

complaint lacks the “facial plausibility” of “factual content that allows the court to draw the 

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

678. For all these reasons, it is apparent that amendment would be futile. The undersigned will 

therefore recommend that the complaint be dismissed with prejudice. 

IV. CONCLUSION 

 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s application to 

proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2), is GRANTED; 

 Further, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that all claims against all defendants should 

be DISMISSED with prejudice. 

Case 2:20-cv-00332-JAM-AC Document 3 Filed 03/18/20 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 

 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 twenty-one days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff 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: March 17, 2020 

Case 2:20-cv-00332-JAM-AC Document 3 Filed 03/18/20 Page 4 of 4