Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00651/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00651-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 441
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Voting
Cause of Action: Civil Miscellaneous Case

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRENDA C. ARMSTEAD,

Plaintiff, No. CIV.S. 05-0651 FCD GGH PS

vs.

GEORGE W. BUSH,

Defendant. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se and in forma pauperis. This

proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 72-302(c)(21).

On April 11, 2005, plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed, and plaintiff was granted

leave to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff’s April 4, 2005, amended complaint is now before

the court. 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the court is directed to dismiss the case at any

time if it determines the allegation of poverty is untrue, or if the action is frivolous or

malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against

an immune defendant. A claim is frivolous if it has no arguable basis in law or fact. Neitzke v.

Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th Cir.

1984); Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1989).

Case 2:05-cv-00651-FCD-GGH Document 8 Filed 06/15/05 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

2

A complaint, or portion thereof, fails to state a claim if it appears beyond doubt

there is no set of supporting facts entitling plaintiff to relief. Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467

U.S. 69, 73 (1984) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)); Palmer v. Roosevelt

Lake Log Owners Ass’n, 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1981). In reviewing a complaint under

this standard, the court must accept as true its allegations, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hosp.

Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), construe it in the light most favorable to plaintiff, and

resolve all doubts in plaintiff’s favor, Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 ( 1969). 

Pro se pleadings are liberally construed. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519,

520-21, 92 S. Ct. 594, 595-96 (1972); Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th

Cir. 1988). Unless it is clear that no amendment can cure the defects of a complaint, a pro se

plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis is entitled to notice and an opportunity to amend before

dismissal. See Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1230. 

The amended complaint states:

In this Amended Complaint I seek: Perm. App. All court - all

elected - all appointed - officials and all their staff for the United

States.

Plaintiff also states that Tom DeLay is “liable to Illegal Racketeering,” and that

“Cliff Stearns Congressman FL. Liable to adultry.” [Sic]. Plaintiff states she is sure that if these

two are in Congress, then the rest of Congress must all be “bad apples.” 

Even under the liberal construction afforded to pro se complaints, plaintiff has

failed to state a claim on which relief can be granted, and has failed to comply with the court’s

previous guidelines in amending her complaint. It is apparent that no further amendment can

cure these defects. 

Good Cause Appearing, IT IS RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed

with prejudice.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within ten (10)

Case 2:05-cv-00651-FCD-GGH Document 8 Filed 06/15/05 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

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 reply to the objections

shall be served and filed within ten (10) 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. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: 6/15/05

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:076

Armstead651.dis.wpd

Case 2:05-cv-00651-FCD-GGH Document 8 Filed 06/15/05 Page 3 of 3