Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01999/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01999-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kamala Harris
Defendant
Seavon Pierce
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

SEAVON PIERCE,

Petitioner,

v.

KAMALA HARRIS,

Respondent.

No. 2:15-cv-1999 JAM CKD (TEMP) P

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has submitted a petition invoking numerous 

federal statutes, including 28 U.S.C. § 1361, which vests federal district courts with original 

jurisdiction to hear “an action in the nature of mandamus” against an officer or employee of the 

United States. Although plaintiff has not paid the required filing fee or filed an application to 

proceed in forma pauperis, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), the court finds it has sufficient information in 

the petition to conduct the screening analysis mandated by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and to recommend 

that this action be dismissed without leave to amend.

1

 

1

Section 1915A(a) requires the court to screen a prisoner’s complaint “as soon as practicable[.]” 

It does not require the court to finalize the prisoner’s in forma pauperis status first. Therefore the 

court need not address petitioner’s attempt to circumvent the “three strikes” bar of 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(g), which he seems to believe applies to him, by alleging he is under imminent danger of 

serious physical injury. (See ECF No. 4.) In fact, the court makes no finding as to whether the 

three-strikes provision applies to petitioner. The court notes, however, that the petition does not 

demand relief from any allegedly imminent danger of physical harm. See Young v. Sisneroz, No. 

Case 2:15-cv-01999-JAM-DB Document 8 Filed 12/14/15 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

The court must screen every pleading by a prisoner who seeks relief against a 

governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The 

court must dismiss that pleading or any portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are 

legally “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or 

that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 

1915A(b)(1),(2). 

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); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th 

Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an 

indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly 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); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227.

In considering whether a petition states a claim upon which relief can be granted, the court 

must accept the allegations as true, Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007), and construe the 

petition in the light most favorable to the petitioner. See Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 

(1974). Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by lawyers. See

Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Still, to survive dismissal for failure to state a claim, 

a pro se petition 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, 555-57 (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). 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 

 

C03-3446 VRW(PR), 2003 WL 22159059 at *1 (N.D.Cal. Sept. 12, 2003) (stating that a threestrikes plaintiff “may proceed in forma pauperis only if he is seeking relief from a danger of 

serious physical injury which is ‘imminent’ at the time of filing”).

Case 2:15-cv-01999-JAM-DB Document 8 Filed 12/14/15 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

for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. 

In this case, the petitioner has named Kamala Harris, Attorney General of California, as 

the only respondent, but it appears from the body of his petition that he alleges a conspiracy 

between state prison officers and federal officials, including President Barack Obama, to violate 

his and other inmates’ constitutional rights. These allegations are “too far-fetched to be believed,” 

which means, for screening purposes, they are “frivolous and should be dismissed.” Clinton v. 

Director, No. CIV-09-0645 DAD P, 2009 WL 799084 at *2 (E.D.Cal. March 24, 2009). See also

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327-28 (1989) (stating that 28 U.S.C. § 1915 empowers 

federal courts to dismiss “claims describing fantastic or delusional scenarios, claims with which 

federal district judges are all too familiar”). 

Although this court frequently grants petitioners leave to amend when their pleadings do 

not pass the screening test described above, the court has discretion not to grant leave to amend 

patently frivolous allegations if doing so would be futile. See Bonin v. Calderon, 59 F.3d 815, 

845 (9th Cir.1995). That is the case here. Therefore this petition should be dismissed as 

frivolous, without leave to amend.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this petition be dismissed as 

frivolous and this case closed.

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.” 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: December 14, 2015

hm

pier1999.f&r

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:15-cv-01999-JAM-DB Document 8 Filed 12/14/15 Page 3 of 3