Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-02343/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-02343-2/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 

HODA SAMUEL, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:18-cv-2343-EFB P 

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

Plaintiff, a pro se claimant in federal custody, brings this action against numerous 

defendants pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 288 (1971).1

 After 

dismissal of her prior complaints pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A (ECF Nos. 9, 21), she has filed a 

third amended complaint (ECF No. 24), which the court must now screen.2

///// 

///// 

///// 

 1

 “Actions under [section] 1983 and those under Bivens are identical save for the 

replacement of a state actor under [section] 1983 by a federal actor under Bivens.” Van Strum v. 

Lawn, 940 F.2d 406, 409 (9th Cir. 1991). 

2

 Pursuant to § 1915(A)(a), the court must “review, before docketing, if feasible or, in any 

event, as soon as practicable after docketing, a complaint in a civil action in which a prisoner 

seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.” 

Case 2:18-cv-02343-KJM-EFB Document 26 Filed 02/05/20 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 

27 

28 

2 

 In its most recent screening order, the court analyzed plaintiff’s first and second amended 

complaints pursuant to § 1915A as follows: 

Plaintiff’s first and second amended complaints do not cure the 

deficiencies identified in the court’s original screening order. See ECF No. 9. 

Notably, plaintiff continues to collaterally attack her criminal conviction and 

sentence. A section 2255 motion to the sentencing court, however, is generally the 

proper vehicle for challenging a conviction.3

 See Porter v. Adams, 244 F.3d 1006 

(9th Cir. 2001). Plaintiff’s scattered assertions – that she received a harsher 

sentence because of racial discrimination; that her sentence is unconstitutional; 

that her judgment should be set aside for fraud on the court; that she was deprived 

of her Sixth Amendment right to counsel; and that her conviction was obtained 

through fabricated evidence – may not be properly brought through this Bivens 

action. See ECF No. 16 at 2-3, 8, 19; ECF No. 20 at 3-6, 8, 10, 11-18. 

 What remains of the amended complaints cannot survive screening. It is 

unduly burdensome to dissect plaintiff’s convoluted and needlessly detailed filings 

to determine which claims she intends to assert against any of the ten individually 

named defendants, along with “all known and unknown government employees of 

the United States of America in the Eastern District of California,” particularly 

when they are referred to collectively as “defendants.” See generally ECF Nos. 16 

& 20 (emphasis added). Further, the difficulty in understanding the specifics of 

plaintiff’s allegations and how, if at all, each defendant was directly responsible 

for any violation of plaintiff’s rights, convinces the court that the complaint does 

not put defendants on notice of the claims against them. See McKeever v. Block, 

932 F.2d 795, 798 (9th Cir. 1991) (holding that a sufficiently plead complaint 

under Rule 8 must “put defendants fairly on notice of the claims against them.”). 

ECF No. 21 at 1-2. 

 Plaintiff’s third amended complaint (ECF No. 24) suffers from all the deficiencies 

previously identified. First, she continues to collaterally attack her conviction through allegations 

that: (1) she received a harsher sentence because of racial discrimination (id. at 5-6); (2) her 

conviction and/or sentence is unconstitutional (id. at 11, 14, 18, 19-20, 24); (3) the judgment 

should be set aside for fraud on the court (id. at 16); (4) she was deprived of her Sixth 

Amendment right to counsel (id. at 5, 6, 7, 14, 18, 20, 22); and (5) the conviction was obtained 

through fabricated evidence (id. at 6, 7, 8, 11, 13). Plaintiff essentially recites the same – largely 

unintelligible – allegations as those in her prior complaints. The edits she has made by way of her 

 3

 The court notes that plaintiff has filed such a motion, which remains pending in her 

criminal case. See United States v. Samuel, 2:10-cr-0223-JAM-KJN (E.D. Cal.), ECF No. 802. 

Case 2:18-cv-02343-KJM-EFB Document 26 Filed 02/05/20 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 

27 

28 

3 

third amended complaint in no way cure the deficiencies the court has identified. Thus, the third 

amended complaint (ECF No. 24) must be dismissed for the reasons stated in the court’s prior 

screening order (ECF Nos. 9, 21) as improperly attacking her criminal conviction and sentence 

and for failure to comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

Leave to Amend 

 The court has afforded plaintiff two chances to amend her complaint, yet her amendments 

have not been responsive to the court’s screening orders. Consequently, it declines to offer her 

further opportunity to amend. See McGlinchy v. Shell Chemical Co., 845 F.2d 802, 809-10 (9th 

Cir. 1988) (“Repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed is another 

valid reason for a district court to deny a party leave to amend.”). 

Conclusion 

 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall randomly assign a United 

States District Judge to this case. 

 Further, it is RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s third amended complaint (ECF No. 24) be 

DISMISSED without leave to amend 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: February 5, 2020. 

Case 2:18-cv-02343-KJM-EFB Document 26 Filed 02/05/20 Page 3 of 3