Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-01471/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-01471-2/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 

DENNIS PETILLO, JR., 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CSP SAC NEW FOLSOM STATE 

PRISON, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:21-cv-1471 AC P 

ORDER AND 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

 Plaintiff is a state inmate who filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 

without a lawyer. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Currently pending before the court is plaintiff’s first amended complaint. 

I. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints 

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). A 

claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. Neitzke v. 

Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). The court may dismiss a claim as frivolous if it is based on 

an indisputably meritless legal theory or factual contentions that are baseless. Neitzke, 490 U.S. 

at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully pleaded, has an 

arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1989). 

Case 2:21-cv-01471-DC-AC Document 11 Filed 10/28/24 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 

In order 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.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-557 (2007). In other words, 

“[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory 

statements do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). A claim upon which the 

court can grant relief has 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, the court must accept the allegations as true, 

Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93-94 (2007), and construe the complaint in the light most 

favorable to the plaintiff, Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974). 

II. Factual Allegations in the First Amended Complaint 

Plaintiff names the CIA Director as well as various other CIA officials as defendants in 

his amended complaint. He alleges a government conspiracy to kill, murder, and torture him by 

“using witchcraft[,] mind control[,] and cross examinat[ion.]” ECF No. 10 at 3. The remainder 

of the amended complaint is incomprehensible to the court. 

III. Failure to State a Claim 

Having conducted the screening required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the court finds that 

plaintiff has failed to state any claim upon which relief may be granted against defendants. The 

allegations in the amended complaint are so vague and conclusory that they do not provide 

adequate notice as to the particular actions of any defendant which constituted a violation of 

plaintiff’s rights. Although the Federal Rules adopt a flexible pleading policy, a complaint must 

give fair notice and state the elements of the claim plainly and succinctly. Jones v. Cmty. Redev. 

Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). Additionally, the court cannot discern any facts 

supporting plaintiff’s allegations of a government conspiracy to harm him. For all these reasons, 

the undersigned finds that plaintiff’s amended complaint does not state any valid claim for relief 

against defendants. 

//// 

Case 2:21-cv-01471-DC-AC Document 11 Filed 10/28/24 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 

IV. No Leave to Amend 

Leave to amend should be granted if it appears possible that the defects in the complaint 

could be corrected, especially if a plaintiff is pro se. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 

(9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). However, if, after careful consideration, it is clear that a complaint 

cannot be cured by amendment, the court may dismiss without leave to amend. Cato v. United 

States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105-06 (9th Cir. 1995). 

It appears to the court that further amendment of this case would be futile because the 

deficiencies have not been cured despite being given prior leave to amend. Therefore, the 

undersigned recommends that the amended complaint be dismissed without further leave to 

amend. Klamath-Lake Pharm. Ass’n v. Klamath Med. Serv. Bureau, 701 F.2d 1276, 1293 (9th 

Cir. 1983) (holding that while leave to amend shall be freely given, the court does not have to 

allow futile amendments). 

V. Plain Language Summary for Pro Se Party 

Since plaintiff is acting as his own attorney in this case, the court wants to make sure that 

the words of this order are understood. The following information is meant to explain this order 

in plain English and is not intended as legal advice. 

It is being recommended that your amended complaint be dismissed without leave to 

amend because the court cannot discern any facts supporting your claims for relief. 

If you disagree with this recommendation, you have 21 days to explain why it is not the 

correct result. Label your explanation as “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 

Recommendations.” The district judge assigned to your case will make the final decision in your 

case. 

CONCLUSION 

 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court 

randomly assign this matter to a district court judge. 

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that: 

1. Plaintiff’s first amended complaint be dismissed for failing to state a claim and that 

further leave to amend be denied. 

Case 2:21-cv-01471-DC-AC Document 11 Filed 10/28/24 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 

 2. The Clerk of Court be directed to close this 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 twenty-one 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 response to the 

objections shall be served and filed within fourteen 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: October 28, 2024 

Case 2:21-cv-01471-DC-AC Document 11 Filed 10/28/24 Page 4 of 4