Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00833/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00833-3/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 

JORGE ANTONIO PEREZ, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

A. DENNEHY, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:15-cv-0833-WBS-EFB P 

 

ORDER GRANTING IFP AND 

RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF 

ACTION AS FRIVOLOUS PURSUANT TO 

28 U.S.C. § 1915A 

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in a civil action. In addition to 

filing a complaint, he has filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915.1 

I. Request to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 

 Plaintiff’s application makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and (2). 

Accordingly, by separate order, the court directs the agency having custody of plaintiff to collect 

and forward the appropriate monthly payments for the filing fee as set forth in 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(b)(1) and (2). 

///// 

///// 

 1

 Therefore, the court will vacate the findings and recommendations recommending 

dismissal of this action for failure to pay the filing fee or to seek leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis. 

Case 2:15-cv-00833-WBS-EFB Document 15 Filed 10/07/15 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

II. Screening Requirement and Standards 

 Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek 

redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915A(a). The court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion 

of the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which 

relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 

relief.” Id. § 1915A(b). 

 A pro se plaintiff, like other litigants, must satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule 8(a) 

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a)(2) “requires a complaint to include a short and 

plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, in order to give the 

defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. 

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554, 562-563 (2007) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957)). 

While the complaint must comply with the “short and plaint statement” requirements of Rule 8, 

its allegations must also include the specificity required by Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 

U.S. 662, 679 (2009). 

 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.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555-557. In other words, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of 

a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 

678. 

 Furthermore, a claim upon which the court can grant relief must have 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, 556 U.S. at 678. 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, 551 U.S. 89 (2007), and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the 

plaintiff, see Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974). 

///// 

Case 2:15-cv-00833-WBS-EFB Document 15 Filed 10/07/15 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

III. Screening Order 

The court has reviewed plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to § 1915A and finds it must be 

dismissed as frivolous. Plaintiff identifies himself as “Special Federal Prosecutor & Judge 

Advocate.” ECF No. 1 at 1. He names numerous defendants, including the U.A.P.D., S.E.I.U., 

the A.F.S.C.M.E., C.C.P.O.R., C.A.G.A., Kamala Harris, and Governor Brown. Id. at 1-2. In the 

section of the form complaint labeled “Statement of Claim,” plaintiff writes, “See Attach: “Notice 

of Motion.” Id., § III. The referenced motion alleges that all persons employed by the State of 

California are “white collar criminals” engaged in corruption, labor racketeering, and “aircraft 

piracy.” Id. at 20-21. Plaintiff alleges that the “unions and their leaders” are part of a “9/11 

conspiracy.” Id. at 25. Plaintiff also makes general and conclusory statements regarding prison 

overcrowding, inadequate mental and medical care, retaliation, due process, and access to the 

courts. Id. at 22-26. These statements are accompanied by citations to case law but are not 

supported by any specific facts. Id. Plaintiff’s request for relief reads as follows: “under ‘the 

RICO Act’ issue a lawful ‘injunction’ irrespectively of any provision of state law. To ‘forfeit’ the 

property of the defendants. To compensate the ‘innocent’ families of the ‘innocent’ victims 

‘murdered’ on ‘September 11, 2001.’” Id. § IV. 

Plaintiff’s allegations are plainly frivolous because they lack even “an arguable basis 

either in law or in fact,” and appear “fanciful,” “fantastic,” or “delusional.” Neitzke v. Williams, 

490 U.S. 319, 325, 328 (1989). Therefore, this action must be dismissed without leave to amend. 

See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000) (“Under Ninth Circuit case law, district 

courts are only required to grant leave to amend if a complaint can possibly be saved. Courts are 

not required to grant leave to amend if a complaint lacks merit entirely.”); see also Doe v. United 

States, 58 F.3d 494, 497 (9th Cir. 1995) (“[A] district court should grant leave to amend even if 

no request to amend the pleading was made, unless it determines that the pleading could not be 

cured by the allegation of other facts.”). 

IV. Summary 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. The June 11, 2015 findings and recommendations (ECF No. 8) are vacated. 

Case 2:15-cv-00833-WBS-EFB Document 15 Filed 10/07/15 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

2. Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF Nos. 9, 11) is granted. 

3. Plaintiff shall pay the statutory filing fee of $350. All payments shall be collected in 

accordance with the notice to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation 

filed concurrently herewith. 

Further, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed as frivolous. 

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. Turner v. 

Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

DATED: October 6, 2015. 

Case 2:15-cv-00833-WBS-EFB Document 15 Filed 10/07/15 Page 4 of 4