Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_25-cv-00155/USCOURTS-caed-2_25-cv-00155-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Taifusin Chiu
Plaintiff
The President of US
Defendant

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

TAIFUSIN CHIU,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE PRESIDENT OF U.S.,

Defendant.

Case No. 2:25-cv-0155-DAD-JDP (PS)

ORDER; FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

Plaintiff filed a complaint purporting to assert claims against the President of the United 

States, together with an application to proceed in forma pauperis. His complaint, however, fails 

to state a claim, and I will recommend that it be dismissed. I will grant plaintiff’s application to 

proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, which makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. 

§§ 1915(a)(1) and (2).

Screening and Pleading Requirements

A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief,

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 

face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility standard does not 

require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 

662, 678 (2009). If the allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere 

possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not 

Case 2:25-cv-00155-DAD-JDP Document 3 Filed 01/17/25 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

identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024, 

1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that 

give rise to an enforceable right to relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264 

n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (citations omitted). 

The court must construe a pro se litigant’s complaint liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 

U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). The court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s complaint “if it 

appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which

would entitle him to relief.” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2017). 

However, “‘a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements 

of the claim that were not initially pled.’” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 

1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)).

Analysis

The complaint is largely incoherent and fails to assert any cause of action against either 

defendant. See generally ECF No. 1. The complaint contains nonsensical sentences and provides 

no allegations of alleged wrongdoing. For example, plaintiff writes, “A pink diamond creates as 

small as rice as 0 and creates as big as sky and land and beyond and infinite bail, free, destroy, 

and remove Father of God and Mother . . . .” Id. at 1. 

The complaint fails to comport with Rule 8’s requirement that it present a short and plain 

statement of plaintiff’s claims. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Plaintiff names “The President of 

US/13M01095” as the defendant but asserts no discernable facts relating to him. Moreover, 

plaintiff’s allegations do not identify any actions taken by defendant that could support a claim 

for relief. See Jones v. Cmty. Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984) (“The plaintiff 

must allege with at least some degree of particularity overt acts which defendants engaged in that 

support the plaintiff’s claim.”). Plaintiff must allege with at least some degree of particularity 

overt acts of defendants that support his claims. Id.

Plaintiff has filed several complaints within the last year that resemble in some manner the 

instant complaint, and none have survived screening. See Chiu v. Trump, 2:22-cv-00764-KJMAC (PS) (E.D. Cal. May 11, 2022) (complaint dismissed without leave to amend and with 

Case 2:25-cv-00155-DAD-JDP Document 3 Filed 01/17/25 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

prejudice); Chiu v. President of the United States, 2:22-cv-00809-TLN-DB (PS) (E.D. Cal. Oct. 

24, 2022) (complaint dismissed without leave to amend); Chiu v. Extra Storage Space, 2:23-cv00099-KJM-AC (PS) (E.D. Cal. Jan. 23, 2023) (complaint dismissed without leave to amend); 

Chiu v. President of U.S., 2:23-cv-00098-KJM-JDP (PS) (E.D. Cal. July 11, 2023) (complaint 

dismissed without leave to amend); Chiu v. Bank of America, 2:23-cv-01201-KJM-AC (PS) (E.D. 

Cal. Aug. 28, 2023) (complaint dismissed without leave to amend); Chiu v. President of U.S., 

2:23-cv-00835-DJC-JDP (PS) (E.D. Cal. Jan. 16, 2024) (complaint dismissed without leave to 

amend); Chiu v. Bank of America, 2:23-cv-01200-KJM-JDP (PS) (E.D. Cal. Feb. 5, 2024) 

(complaint dismissed without leave to amend). 

The operative complaint should be dismissed for failure to state a claim. In light of the 

complaint’s allegations, I find that granting plaintiff an opportunity to amend would not cure the 

complaint’s deficiencies, and so I recommend that dismissal be without leave to amend. See

Schucker v. Rockwood, 846 F.2d 1202, 1203-04 (9th Cir. 1988) (per curiam) (“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 and citations 

omitted). 

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiff’s request for leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis, ECF No. 2, is granted. 

Furthermore, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that:

1. Plaintiff’s complaint, ECF No. 1, be dismissed without leave to amend.

2. The Clerk of Court be directed to close this matter. 

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 

Case 2:25-cv-00155-DAD-JDP Document 3 Filed 01/17/25 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

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).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 17, 2025 

JEREMY D. PETERSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:25-cv-00155-DAD-JDP Document 3 Filed 01/17/25 Page 4 of 4