Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-02455/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-02455-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
City of Elk Grove
Defendant
Bobby Davis
Defendant
Raj Singh
Plaintiff
Trudau
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

RAJ SINGH,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF ELK GROVE, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 2:24-cv-02455-KJM-JDP (PS)

ORDER

GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION 

TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

ECF No. 2

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

THAT PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT BE 

DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND

ECF No. 1

OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN 

DAYS

Plaintiff brings this action against defendants City of Elk Grove, Sargent Trudau, and 

Police Chief Bobby Davis. His complaint alleges only claims that this court has previously 

dismissed, and the court also lacks subject matter jurisdiction. I will grant plaintiff’s application 

to proceed in forma pauperis, which makes the required showing pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(a). I recommend that complaint be dismissed without leave to amend.

Screening and Pleading Requirements

A federal court must screen the complaint of any claimant seeking permission to proceed 

in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The court must identify any cognizable claims and 

Case 2:24-cv-02455-KJM-JDP Document 3 Filed 10/18/24 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

dismiss any portion of the complaint that is frivolous or malicious, 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.

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 

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

Plaintiff has filed a single-page complaint which includes vague and conclusory 

allegations against the City of Elk Grove and two police officers. ECF No. 1 at 1. Plaintiff 

alleges that defendants removed him from his home on October 14, 2022, and kept him away 

from his house “to die outside from cold . . . for no reasonable legal reason” and “adopted grossly 

illegal and unconstitutional practices, customs and policies[.]” Id. Plaintiff seeks damages in the 

amount of more than $100,000,000.

The complaint should be dismissed because this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and 

Case 2:24-cv-02455-KJM-JDP Document 3 Filed 10/18/24 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

because this court previously dismissed plaintiff’s complaint regarding the same October 14, 

2022 incident. Looking first at the complaint’s allegations, they are sparse and insufficient to 

notify defendants of the specific claim plaintiff is attempting to allege. Plaintiff has not alleged 

any specific injury caused by defendants that can be redressed here. Therefore, this court does 

not have jurisdiction over this action; the complaint alleges no federal claim and there is no 

diversity jurisdiction because both plaintiff and defendants are citizens of California. See ECF 

No. 1-1 at 1. Moreover, as plaintiff has alleged no legal or factual basis for the claimed damages, 

the amount in controversy requirement plainly cannot be met. See McDaniel v. Hinch, No. 2:17-

cv-02448-KJM-CKD (E.D. Cal. July 11, 2018) (“[W]ith no stated claim triggering either 

diversity or federal question jurisdiction, the complaint is properly subject to dismissal for lack of 

jurisdiction. Fed. R. Civ. P 8(a)(2); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677 (2009).”). 

Further, court records reflect that plaintiff has filed a complaint in this district that is 

nearly identical to the complaint in this case. See Singh v. City of Elk Grove, 2:23-cv-00057-

TLN-CKD (E.D. Cal Aug. 7, 2023) (dismissing the complaint without prejudice for lack of 

federal subject matter jurisdiction). In that case, the court dismissed plaintiff’s complaint against 

the same defendants with substantially similar allegations concerning plaintiff’s removal from his 

home on October 14, 2022, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 

1103, 1105 n.2 (9th Cir. 1995) (holding that a complaint that “merely repeats pending or 

previously litigated claims” may be dismissed as frivolous under the authority of 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915).

Consequently, the complaint should 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.”).

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma 

pauperis, ECF No. 2, is granted.

Further, it is RECOMMENDED that:

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

Case 2:24-cv-02455-KJM-JDP Document 3 Filed 10/18/24 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

subject matter jurisdiction; and

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 fourteen days of 

service of these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the 

court and serve a copy on all parties. Any such document should be captioned “Objections to 

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations,” and any response shall be served and filed 

within fourteen days of 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. See 

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: October 18, 2024 

JEREMY D. PETERSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:24-cv-02455-KJM-JDP Document 3 Filed 10/18/24 Page 4 of 4