Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01755/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01755-3/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES FORDJOUR,

Plaintiff,

v.

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:07-cv-01755-LJO-SMS PC

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION, WITH

PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE TO STATE A

CLAIM, AND DIRECTING CLERK OF

COURT TO ENTER JUDGMENT

(Doc. 34)

ORDER COUNTING DISMISSAL AS A

STRIKE UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1915(G)

Screening Order

I. Procedural History

Plaintiff Charles Fordjour, a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on December 3, 2007. On July 28, 2009, the Court

dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint, with leave to amend, for failure to state a claim. After obtaining

multiple extensions of time, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on July 23, 2010. 

II. Screening Requirement

 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a

governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The

Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally

“frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). 

“Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall

1

Case 1:07-cv-01755-LJO -SMS Document 35 Filed 07/26/10 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

dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action or appeal . . . fails to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 

III. Plaintiff’s Claims

Plaintiff, who is currently incarcerated at the Yuba County Jail, brought this action when he

was housed at Avenal State Prison. In his original complaint, Plaintiff alleged that from April 2007

to the present, while at San Quentin State Prison and then Avenal, prison officials continually

attempted to have him murdered. Plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed, with leave to amend, because

Plaintiff failed to set forth any facts linking the named defendants to any acts or omissions which

violated Plaintiff’s rights under the Eighth Amendment. Plaintiff was notified that conclusory

allegations of attempted murder will not support a claim.

In his amended complaint, Plaintiff alleges that from December 11, 2006, to the present, the

named defendants have been subjecting him to illegal biomedical research experimentation, torture,

kidnaping, false imprisonment, entrapment, and genital mutilation, causing damage to his internal

organs and ability to reproduce, and resulting in theft of “intellectual properties” and “memory.”1

(Doc. 34, Amend. Comp., pp. 8-9.) 

A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader

is entitled to relief . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not required, but

“[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported bymere conclusory statements,

do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v.

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007)). Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient

factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim that is plausible on its face.’” Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at

1949 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). Facial plausibility demands more than the mere

possibility that a defendant committed misconduct, Iqbal at 1950, and while factual allegations are

accepted as true, legal conclusion are not, id. at 1949.

Defendants named in this action include Governor Schwarzenegger, Maria Shriver, Attorney General Jerry

1

Brown, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Secretary Matthew Cate, Kings County District

Attorney Ronald Calhoun, Assistant District Attorney Ty Ford, the current and past Sheriffs of Kings County, Kings

County District Attorney’s Office, Kings County Sheriff’s Department, the Attorney General’s Office, and All the

Way Life dba XYZ Corporation.

2

Case 1:07-cv-01755-LJO -SMS Document 35 Filed 07/26/10 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

Plaintiff’s amended complaint fails to state any claims upon which relief may be granted. 

The questionable nature of Plaintiff’s claims aside, the complaint is devoid of any factual allegations

supporting Plaintiff’s claims and fails to include any specific allegations linking the acts complained

of to the named defendants. Plaintiff’s conclusory allegations of harm do not give rise to any facially

plausible claims for relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a); Iqbal at 1949-50.

IV. Conclusion and Order

Plaintiff’s amended complaint fails to state any claims upon which relief may be granted. 

Plaintiff was previously given notice of the deficiencies and the opportunity to amend, and based on

the record in this case, further leave to amend is not warranted. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122,

1130 (9th Cir. 2000). Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. This action is dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim; 

2. This dismissal counts as a strike pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); and

3. The Clerk’s Office shall enter judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 26, 2010 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3

Case 1:07-cv-01755-LJO -SMS Document 35 Filed 07/26/10 Page 3 of 3