Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00560/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00560-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DARREL R. FISHER,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. DOE,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:24-cv-00560-JLT-HBK

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO 

DENY MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA 

PAUPERIS AND DISMISS CASE AS 

FRIVOLOUS1

14-DAY OBJECTION PERIOD 

This matter comes before the court for its initial screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 

Darrel R. Fisher (“Plaintiff”) is civilly committed at the Federal Medical Center in Butner, North

Carolina.2 Plaintiff commenced this action by filing a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 

U.S.C. § 1983 and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis on May 10. 2024. (Doc. Nos. 1, 2). 

For reasons set forth below, the undersigned recommends the district court deny Plaintiff’s 

motion to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the Complaint as frivolous and lacking an 

arguable basis in fact or law.

SCREENING REQUIREMENT 

A plaintiff may bring an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to remedy violations of “rights, 

1 This matter was referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302 

(E.D. Cal. 2023). 

2 See Fisher v. United States, Case No. 4:24-cv-00247-FJG (W.D. Mo.), Doc. No. 3 at 1.

Case 1:24-cv-00560-JLT-HBK Document 7 Filed 06/07/24 Page 1 of 6
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

privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and [federal] laws,” that were perpetrated 

by a person or entity, including a municipality, acting under the color of state law. 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983; see also Monell v. Dep’t of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690-95 (1978). Because Plaintiff 

seeks to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court first reviews the Complaint to determine whether 

the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks 

monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. a defendant who is immune 

from such relief. 28 U.S.C § 1915(e)(2)(B).

A complaint should not be dismissed unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can 

prove no set of facts in support of his or her claim that would entitle him to relief. Johnson v. 

Knowles, 113 F.3d 1114, 1117 (9th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 552 U.S. 996 (1997). Dismissal for 

failure to state a claim in this context is governed by the same standard as dismissal under Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Barren v. Harrington, 152 F. 3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998). 

As such, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter to state a claim to relief that is 

“plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). “A complaint is plausible on 

its face when it contains sufficient facts to support a reasonable inference that the defendant is 

liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. At this stage, the court accepts the facts stated in the 

complaint as true. Hosp. Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hosp. Tr., 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976). The Court does 

not accept as true allegations that are merely conclusory, unreasonable inferences, or unwarranted 

deductions. Western Mining Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d 618, 624 (9th Cir. 1981). Nor are legal 

conclusions considered facts. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.

Because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court liberally construes the Complaint in the

light most favorable to the Plaintiff. Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969); Bernhardt 

v. L.A. County, 339 F.3d 920, 925 (9th Cir. 2003). If a pleading could be cured by the allegation 

of other facts, a pro se litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint before dismissal 

of the action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-29 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc); Lucas v. 

Department of Corr., 66 F.3d 245, 248 (9th Cir. 1995). However, it is not the role of the Court to 

advise a litigant on how to cure the defects. Such advice “would undermine district judges’ role 

as impartial decisionmakers.” Pliler v. Ford, 542 U.S. 225, 231 (2004); see also Lopez, 203 F.3d 

Case 1:24-cv-00560-JLT-HBK Document 7 Filed 06/07/24 Page 2 of 6
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

at 1131 n.13.

BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY OF OPERATIVE PLEADING

Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on 

May 10, 2024. (Doc. No. 1, “Complaint”). The events giving rise to the Complaint took place in 

or near Mojave, California on an unspecified date in 1994. (Doc. No. 1 at 5). The Complaint

identifies “J. Doe” as the sole Defendant. (Id.). The Complaint, although disjointed and difficult 

to understand, alleges that in 1994 at a California Highway Patrol weigh station on Highway 58 

near Mojave, Defendant Doe “extorted” $7893from Plaintiff. (See generally id.). Plaintiff was 

subsequently prosecuted in a Mojave courtroom based on unspecified acts by J. Doe. (Id. at 5). 

Plaintiff was then convicted in 1999 for an unspecified offense in Missouri and has been 

incarcerated for “26+ years.” (Id. at 10). “After 27 years, the Federal Government took off 

[Plaintiff’s] right leg above the knee leaving [him] tied to a wheelchair disabled, handicapped and 

forever scarred by the results of the criminal acts of J Doe et al in 1994 as a contributory factor in 

[his] plight.” (Id. at 5). Based on the above facts, the Complaint asserts a claim for “gunpoint 

seizure of property (contracts) impairing such contracts” and cites numerous federal laws and 

constitutional provisions, including Article I, Section 8, clause 13; Article I, Section 9, Clause 12, 

Article I, Section 10, Clause 1; the First, Fourth, Fifth, Seventh, and Fourteenth Amendments; 18 

U.S.C. §§ 2, 242, 1503, 1512, 1951, 1952; and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1982, 1985(3). (Doc. No. 1-1 

at 1). As relief, Plaintiff seeks $200 million “in combined actual losses and punitive damages.” 

(Doc. No. 1 at 10).

APPLICABLE LAW AND ANALYSIS

As an initial matter, Plaintiff’s Complaint violates Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure because it does not provide a date with any specificity as to when any of the alleged 

violations occurred. See Cervantes v. Elsen, 2023 WL 3483292 (N.D. Cal. May 15, 2023) 

(allegations that the misconduct occurred from 2022 to 2023 was not a specific date); Valenzuela 

v. Monson, 2020 WL 1812043, at *2 (D. Ariz. Apr. 8, 2020); Fisher v. Washington State 

3 The Complaint variously refers to the amount as $789, $879, and $869. (Id. at 5, 7, 9).

Case 1:24-cv-00560-JLT-HBK Document 7 Filed 06/07/24 Page 3 of 6
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

Department of Corrections, 2019 WL 1745086, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 18, 2019) (the complaint 

violated Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because, among other reasons, it did not 

provide a specific date and therefore it did not “provide the defendants fair notice of what the 

claim is . . .”); Walker v. Muniz, 2019 WL 2359229, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Jun. 4, 2019) (referencing 

Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) when explaining the specific date must 

be alleged to meet the requirement of giving defendants fair notice); McIntosh v. City of L.A., 

2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53641, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Jul. 21, 2005) (citing McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 

1172, 1177-79 (9th Cir. 1996)). Other than citing the year 1994, the Complaint does not allege 

when J. Doe held Plaintiff at gunpoint and took his property. Because the Complaint does not 

allege any dates when the alleged constitutional violations occurred, the Court cannot reasonably 

infer that any Defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.

It would be futile to permit Plaintiff to amend the Complaint to cure the date because the 

Complaint is factually frivolous. A “court need not accept as true . . . allegations that contradict 

facts that may be judicially noticed by the court.” Shwarz v. United States, 234 F.3d 428, 435 

(9th Cir. 2000). The Court takes judicial notice of United States v. Fisher, Case No. 4:99-cr00012-BCW-1 (W.D. Mo.). There, Plaintiff was found incompetent to stand trial and, 

subsequently, was found not restorable to competency. Id., Doc. Nos. 58, 62. Consequently, 

Plaintiff was ordered committed to Federal Medical Center in Butner, North Carolina, where he 

remains committed. Id. Thus, Plaintiff’s allegations that Defendant J. Doe caused him to be 

subject to a criminal prosecution and imprisoned for more than 20 years is refuted by the record.

Moreover, Plaintiff’s Complaint is frivolous because the allegations in the Complaint are 

essentially duplicative of claims that have summarily been dismissed by other district courts. See, 

e.g., Fisher v. McKinney, Case No. 2:24-cv-03284-DFS-AJR (C.D. Cal., May 1, 2024); Fisher v. 

McKinney, Case No. 2:24-cv-03223-RGK-DFM (C.D. Cal. April 30, 2024); Fisher v. Connor, 

Case No. 4:18-cv-00521-ODS (W.D. Mo., August 20, 2018); Fisher v. Doe, Case No. 4:18-cv00684-W-FJG-P (W.D. Mo., October 6, 2023); Fisher v. Roberts, Case No. 5:23-ct-03225-M-RJ 

(E.D. N.C., November 7, 2023); Fisher v. U.S. District Court, Case No. 5:24-ct-03026-BO (E.D. 

N.C., April 17, 2024); Fisher v. Casey, Case No. 4:23-cv-00733-FJG (W.D. Mo., October 13, 

Case 1:24-cv-00560-JLT-HBK Document 7 Filed 06/07/24 Page 4 of 6
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

5

2023). 

Additionally, Plaintiff’s claims a subject to dismissal because the alleged wrongdoing 

occurred sometime in 1994. Therefore, his claims are barred by the applicable two-year statute of 

limitations. See Whiting v. City of Cathedral City, 735 F. App’x 927, 928 (9th Cir. 2018) (noting 

that for 42 U.S.C. § 1983 actions, the statute of limitations is dictated “by the forum state’s statute 

of limitations for personal injury actions,” which is two years in California); see also Jones v. 

Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 215 (2007) (“[i]f the allegations . . . show that relief is barred by the 

applicable statute of limitations, the complaint is subject to dismissal for failure to state a claim . . 

. “).

Finally, given these deficiencies, leave to amend is not warranted. Lopez v. Smith, 203 

F.3d 1122, 1127 n.8 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (“When a case may be classified as frivolous or 

malicious, there is, by definition, no merit to the underlying action and so no reason to grant leave 

to amend.”). Thus, the undersigned recommends the Complaint be dismissed without leave to 

amend, and the action be dismissed with prejudice.

Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 2) be DENIED.

2. Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. No. 1) be dismissed with prejudice under § 1915 

(e)(2)(B)(i), (ii) as frivolous and lacking an arguable basis in law or fact and/or for 

failing to state a claim.

////

////

NOTICE TO PARTIES

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 

Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days 

after being served with a copy of these Findings and Recommendations, a party may file written 

objections with the Court. Id.; Local Rule 304(b). The document should be captioned, 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The assigned District Judge 

will review these Findings and Recommendations under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(C). A party’s 

Case 1:24-cv-00560-JLT-HBK Document 7 Filed 06/07/24 Page 5 of 6
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

6

failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of certain rights on 

appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014). 

Dated: June 7, 2024 

HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:24-cv-00560-JLT-HBK Document 7 Filed 06/07/24 Page 6 of 6