Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-02743/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-02743-0/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

DAVOOD KHADEMI,

Plaintiff,

v.

GAVIN NEWSOM, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 2:23-cv-02743-JDP (PC)

ORDER 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA 

PAUPERIS AND FINDING THAT THE 

COMPLAINT FAILS TO STATE A 

VIABLE CLAIM AND GRANTING 

LEAVE TO AMEND

ECF Nos. 1 & 2

AMENDED COMPLAINT DUE WITHIN 

THIRTY DAYS

Plaintiff, an inmate in the South Placer County Jail, brings this action against Governor 

Newsom, an unspecified city council (presumably that of South Placer), and the Immigration and 

Naturalization Services (“INS”). ECF No. 1 at 1-2. The specifics of his allegations, however, are 

difficult to understand due to the complaint’s lack of organization and low legibility. As such, the 

complaint does not adequately put defendants on notice of the claims against them. I will give 

plaintiff leave to amend so that he may better plead his claims. I will also grant plaintiff’s 

application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2. 

Case 2:23-cv-02743-DC-JDP Document 5 Filed 01/17/24 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

Screening Order

I. Screening and Pleading Requirements

A federal court must screen the complaint of any claimant seeking permission to proceed 

in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The court must identify any cognizable claims and 

dismiss any portion of the complaint that is 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. Id. 

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 brings this action against Governor Newsom, a city council, and the INS. ECF 

No. 1 at 1-2. The specifics of his claims are difficult to comprehend, however. His handwriting 

is difficult to read, and the complaint suffers from a lack of organization. As best I can tell, 

Case 2:23-cv-02743-DC-JDP Document 5 Filed 01/17/24 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

plaintiff’s claims relate to defendants’ alleged refusal to allow the operation of a Section Eight 

housing program. Id. at 4. The complaint does not, however, explain how each of the named 

defendants have participated in the restriction of that program—at least not in any way that a 

reader could be expected to grasp. The complaint moves from allegations of class action claims,1

id. at 5, to allegations that, in 2013, plaintiff was shot and stabbed after losing access to housing, 

id. at 8. Plaintiff is advised that the statute of limitations for a section 1983 claim tracks state law, 

Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 387 (2007), and, in California, there is a two-year statute of 

limitations for personal injury claims, Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 335.1. Throughout, plaintiff brings 

the borderline fanciful allegation that all of the defendants targeted him with a “premeditated 

agenda,” but he never describes how he knows that the governor, city council, and a federal 

agency were focused on harming him. ECF No. 1 at 9. 

The complaint cannot proceed as written. It fails to give each defendant sufficient notice 

of the claims against them and, at a more fundamental level, fails to present a comprehensible 

narrative of how plaintiff’s rights were violated. Plaintiff must file an amended complaint that 

remedies this deficiency. He is advised that the amended complaint will supersede the current 

complaint. See Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F. 3d 896, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc). The 

amended complaint should be titled “Amended Complaint” and refer to the appropriate case 

number.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, is GRANTED.

2. Within thirty days from the service of this order, plaintiff must file an amended 

complaint that complies with this order. If he fails to do so, I will recommend that his unrelated 

claims be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 

3. The Clerk of Court shall send plaintiff a section 1983 complaint form with this order. 

1 Plaintiff is not qualified to bring such claims. See C.E. Pope Equity Trust v. United 

States, 818 F.2d 696, 697 (9th Cir. 1987) (“Although a non-attorney may appear in propria 

persona in his own behalf, that privilege is personal to him. . . . He has no authority to appear as 

an attorney for others than himself.”). 

Case 2:23-cv-02743-DC-JDP Document 5 Filed 01/17/24 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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 16, 2024 

JEREMY D. PETERSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:23-cv-02743-DC-JDP Document 5 Filed 01/17/24 Page 4 of 4