Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01907/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01907-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jerry Brown
Defendant
Scott Jones
Defendant
Serna
Defendant
Christopher Taylor
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 

CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

SCOTT JONES, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:15-cv-1907-EFB P 

 

ORDER GRANTING IFP AND DISMISSING 

ACTION AS FRIVOLOUS AND FOR 

FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM PURSUANT 

TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915A 

Plaintiff is a county inmate proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 

U.S.C. § 1983.1 In addition to filing a complaint, he 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). 

///// 

///// 

 1

 This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1) and is before the undersigned pursuant to plaintiff’s consent. See E.D. Cal. Local 

Rules, Appx. A, at (k)(4). 

Case 2:15-cv-01907-EFB Document 12 Filed 12/03/15 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

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 

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). 

///// 

Case 2:15-cv-01907-EFB Document 12 Filed 12/03/15 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

To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege: (1) the violation of a federal 

constitutional or statutory right; and (2) that the violation was committed by a person acting under 

the color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 

930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). An individual defendant is not liable on a civil rights claim unless the 

facts establish the defendant’s personal involvement in the constitutional deprivation or a causal 

connection between the defendant’s wrongful conduct and the alleged constitutional deprivation. 

See Hansen v. Black, 885 F.2d 642, 646 (9th Cir. 1989); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743-44 

(9th Cir. 1978).Plaintiff may not sue any official on the theory that the official is liable for the 

unconstitutional conduct of his or her subordinates. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). 

He must identify the particular person or persons who violated his rights. He must also plead 

facts showing how that particular person was involved in the alleged violation. 

III. Screening Order 

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

dismissed as frivolous and for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff alleges that he has “given 

information pertaining to criminal or government violation[s] . . . to Secretary of State, DOJ, US 

Navy, United Nations, etc.” ECF No. 1 at 2. He complains that there was “no follow up” to his 

complaints and believes he was “discriminated against based on prior criminal conduct . . . .” Id. 

He claims he “even contacted Robert Mueller the third ex FBI Director . . . as well as John Kerry, 

Board of Equalization, etc.” Id. at 4. He claims that when he reported an assault by two plain 

clothes officers, a Marshal “falsely attempted to charge [plaintiff] with the murder of Lacey 

Peterson.” Id. at 2. Plaintiff then alleges that his “grandpa was murdered” and states that he 

“file[d] a portfolio under Mikowlski Wolfe World War II Hero.” Id. at 3. As relief, plaintiff 

seeks “diplomatic immunity, or asylum under United Nations.” Id. at 4. In a supplement to the 

complaint, plaintiff alleges that an “illegal recording and tracking device may have been placed in 

[his] body” while he underwent surgery. ECF No. 8 at 9. 

The complaint fails to state a claim because it does not link any of the named defendants – 

Scott Jones, Jerry Brown, and Serna – to the alleged deprivation of plaintiff’s rights. Moreover, 

the failure to respond to any of plaintiff’s letters or complaints does not give rise to a claim. In 

Case 2:15-cv-01907-EFB Document 12 Filed 12/03/15 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

addition, plaintiff’s allegations are plainly frivolous because they lack even “an arguable basis 

either in law or in fact,” and appear “fanciful,” “fantastic,” or “delusional.” Neitzke v. Williams, 

490 U.S. 319, 325, 328 (1989). 

Therefore, this action must be dismissed without leave to amend. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 

F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000) (“Under Ninth Circuit case law, district courts are only required 

to grant leave to amend if a complaint can possibly be saved. Courts are not required to grant 

leave to amend if a complaint lacks merit entirely.”); see also 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. Summary 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 5) is granted. 

2. Plaintiff shall pay the statutory filing fee of $350. All payments shall be collected in 

accordance with the notice to the Sheriff of Sacramento County filed concurrently herewith. 

3. This action is dismissed as frivolous and for failure to state a claim and the Clerk is 

directed to terminate all outstanding motions and close the case. 

DATED: December 2, 2015. 

Case 2:15-cv-01907-EFB Document 12 Filed 12/03/15 Page 4 of 4