Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01498/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01498-0/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 

WILLIAM KEITH, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

FRANK A. McGUIRE, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:15-cv-1498-WBS-EFB P 

ORDER GRANTING IFP AND 

RECOMMENDATION OF DISMISSAL 

PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915A 

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983, has filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 

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). 

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 

Case 2:15-cv-01498-WBS-EFB Document 6 Filed 10/20/15 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

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). 

III. Screening Order 

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

dismissed because plaintiff seeks relief from a defendant who is immune from suit and fails to 

state a claim for relief. 

Plaintiff alleges that the Clerk of the California Supreme Court responded to plaintiff’s 

petition with instructions on how to proceed with documentation, and that after plaintiff complied 

Case 2:15-cv-01498-WBS-EFB Document 6 Filed 10/20/15 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

with those instructions, the Clerk informed plaintiff that his petition had been denied, and 

returned plaintiff’s documentation. ECF No. 1, § IV. Plaintiff’s requested relief is for the court 

“to do what must be done legally to insure that no one else would suffer what [plaintiff has] 

suffered and continue to suffer to make sure accountability be brought to the table.” Id., § V. 

“Court clerks have absolute quasi-judicial immunity from damages for civil rights 

violations when they perform tasks that are an integral part of the judicial process.” Mullis v. 

United States Bankruptcy Court, 828 F.2d 1385, 1390 (9th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 

1040 (1988). This immunity extends to actions for declaratory, injunctive, and other equitable 

relief. Id. at 1394. Plaintiff’s request for relief, vague as it is, appears to seek some form of 

equitable relief. This action must therefore be dismissed pursuant to § 1915A because it seeks 

relief from a defendant who is immune from suit. 

Plaintiff does not identify any specific claims for relief and his allegations and are not 

sufficient to state a cognizable claim for a violation of his federal constitutional rights. To state a 

claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: (1) that a right 

secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the alleged 

violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 

42, 48 (1988). 

Because the deficiencies in plaintiff’s claim cannot be cured by further amendment, the 

complaint is dismissed without leave to amend. Silva v. Di Vittorio, 658 F.3d 1090, 1105 (9th 

Cir. 2011) (“Dismissal of a pro se complaint without leave to amend is proper only if it is 

absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by amendment.” 

(internal quotation marks omitted)); 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. Order and Recommendation 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is granted. 

///// 

Case 2:15-cv-01498-WBS-EFB Document 6 Filed 10/20/15 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 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 HERBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1915A and the Clerk be directed to close the case. 

 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 20, 2015. 

Case 2:15-cv-01498-WBS-EFB Document 6 Filed 10/20/15 Page 4 of 4