Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-02215/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-02215-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Taifusin Chiu
Plaintiff
Iu Mien Church
Defendant
President of the United States
Defendant
Donald Trump
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, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

IU MIEN CHURCH, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:23-cv-02215-KJM-CKD (PS)

ORDER

Plaintiff, Taifusin Chiu, proceeds without counsel on a complaint filed on October 4, 

2023. (ECF No. 1.) This matter is referred to the undersigned by Local Rule 302(c)(21) pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 636. Plaintiff’s complaint (ECF No. 1) is before the court for screening. 

Plaintiff also requests to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 2.) Plaintiff’s application

makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915, and the request to proceed in forma pauperis is 

granted. For the reasons set forth below, the complaint fails to state a claim, but plaintiff is 

granted leave to file an amended complaint.

I. SCREENING REQUIREMENT

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the court must screen every in forma pauperis 

proceeding, and must order dismissal of the case if it is “frivolous or malicious,” “fails to state a 

claim on which relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is 

Case 2:23-cv-02215-KJM-CKD Document 9 Filed 10/31/23 Page 1 of 5
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

immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 

(2000). In performing this screening, the court liberally construes a pro se plaintiff’s pleadings. 

See Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1137 (9th Cir. 1987). 

II. ALLEGATIONS IN THE COMPLAINT

The complaint does not contain discernable factual allegations in support of a cause of 

action and does not specify the relief plaintiff seeks. (See generally, ECF No. 1.) The complaint 

names Iu Mien Church (entered on the docket as Lu Mien Church), The President of the United 

States, and Donald Trump as defendants. (Id.) The complaint appears to be titled “Medal of 

Honor versus Purple Heart” and mentions “President Show Down” in several places. (Id.) The 

complaint, or the final exhibit attached to the complaint, concludes as follows: 

You didn’t free all debt and I win you as highest achievement and 

obtain Medal of Honor award. 

The case is closed and remove and clearance as highest achievement 

and obtain Medal of Honor award. 

(Id. at 14.) 

III. PLEADING STANDARDS

A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 

pleader is entitled to relief....” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not 

required, but “[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) (citing Bell 

Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). While factual allegations are accepted as 

true, legal conclusions are not. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. Courts “are not required to indulge 

unwarranted inferences[.]” Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) 

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

Pro se litigants are entitled to have their pleadings liberally construed and to have any 

doubt resolved in their favor, Eldridge, 832 F.2d at 1137, but a plaintiff’s claims must be facially 

plausible to survive screening. Facial plausibility for a claim requires sufficient factual detail to 

Case 2:23-cv-02215-KJM-CKD Document 9 Filed 10/31/23 Page 2 of 5
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

allow the court to reasonably infer that a named defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. 

Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. 

IV. THE COMPLAINT MUST BE DISMISSED

A. Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and only hear cases authorized by the 

Constitution or a statutory grant. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375, 

377 (1994). The burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction rests upon the party seeking to 

invoke federal jurisdiction. Id. If subject matter jurisdiction is lacking, the court must dismiss the 

suit. Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006); Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). In addition, 

those who seek to invoke the jurisdiction of the federal courts must satisfy the threshold 

requirement imposed by Article III of the Constitution by alleging an actual case or controversy. 

City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 101 (1983). Plaintiff’s complaint fails to establish the 

court’s subject matter jurisdiction over an actual case or controversy and must be dismissed on 

that basis. 

 B. Failure to Comply with Rule 8

In addition to the jurisdictional defect, the complaint fails to allege a “plain statement of 

the claim” in a “simple, concise, and direct” manner. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) and (d)(1). Though 

artistically presented, the complaint does not satisfy the standard of Rule 8, which provides, in 

relevant part, as follows: 

(a) Claim for Relief. A pleading that states a claim for relief must 

contain: 

(1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s 

jurisdiction, unless the court already has jurisdiction and the claim 

needs no new jurisdictional support; 

(2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader 

is entitled to relief; and

(3) a demand for the relief sought, which may include relief in the 

alternative or different types of relief.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). A complaint that fails to comply with Rule 8 is subject to dismissal. See

Nevijel v. N. Coast Life Ins. Co., 651 F.2d 671, 673 (9th Cir. 1981). 

Case 2:23-cv-02215-KJM-CKD Document 9 Filed 10/31/23 Page 3 of 5
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

In order to give the defendants fair notice of the claims, a complaint must state the factual 

allegations “plainly and succinctly.” Jones v. Cmty. Redevelopment Agency of City of Los 

Angeles, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). A plaintiff must allege with at least some degree of 

particularity overt acts by specific defendants which support the claims. See Kimes v. Stone, 84 

F.3d 1121, 1129 (9th Cir. 1996). Here, the complaint does make clear “who is being sued for 

what” and therefore fails to give fair notice of the claims. See Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 

216 F.3d 837, 840-41 (9th Cir. 2000); McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1178-80 (9th Cir. 1996) 

(affirming dismissal of complaint where “one cannot determine from the complaint who is being 

sued, for what relief, and on what theory, with enough detail to guide discovery”). 

C. Guidelines for an Amended Complaint

Because the complaint fails to set forth a basis for jurisdiction and does not comply with 

the requirements of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the complaint must be 

dismissed. Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint within 30 days. See Lucas v. 

Dep’t of Corr., 66 F.3d 245, 248 (9th Cir. 1995) (“Unless it is absolutely clear that no amendment 

can cure the defect... a pro se litigant is entitled to notice of the complaint’s deficiencies and an 

opportunity to amend prior to dismissal of the action.”).

If plaintiff elects to file an amended complaint, it shall be clearly captioned “First 

Amended Complaint” and shall cure the jurisdictional deficiencies identified herein. In any 

amended complaint, plaintiff must allege with at least some degree of particularity overt acts 

which a defendant or defendants engaged in that support plaintiff’s claim. Jones v. Community 

Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). 

V. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

In accordance with the above, IT IS ORDERED as follows: 

 1. The Clerk of the Court is directed to change the spelling of the first defendant from 

“Lu Mien Church” to “Iu Mien Church.” 

2. Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is granted. 

 3. Plaintiff’s complaint (ECF No. 1) is dismissed with leave to amend. 

////

Case 2:23-cv-02215-KJM-CKD Document 9 Filed 10/31/23 Page 4 of 5
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

5

4. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to file an amended 

complaint that complies with the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the 

Local Rules of Practice; failure to file an amended complaint in accordance with this order will 

result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed.

Dated: October 30, 2023

8

chiu.23cv2215.scrn

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:23-cv-02215-KJM-CKD Document 9 Filed 10/31/23 Page 5 of 5