Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01687/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01687-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Dexter Brown
Plaintiff
Alison Claire
Defendant
Monica Miller
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DEXTER BROWN, No. 2:15-CV-1687-GEB-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

MONICA MILLER, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s complaint (Doc. 1).

The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief

against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A(a). The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if it: (1) is frivolous or

malicious; (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief

from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Moreover,

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that complaints contain a “. . . short and plain

statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). 

This means that claims must be stated simply, concisely, and directly. See McHenry v. Renne,

1

Case 2:15-cv-01687-GEB-CMK Document 10 Filed 02/24/16 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

84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996) (referring to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e)(1)). These rules are satisfied

if the complaint gives the defendant fair notice of the plaintiff’s claim and the grounds upon

which it rests. See Kimes v. Stone, 84 F.3d 1121, 1129 (9th Cir. 1996). Because plaintiff must

allege with at least some degree of particularity overt acts by specific defendants which support

the claims, vague and conclusory allegations fail to satisfy this standard. Additionally, it is

impossible for the court to conduct the screening required by law when the allegations are vague

and conclusory. 

Plaintiff names as defendants Monica Miller, Special Agent for the Federal

Bureau of Investigations, and Alison Claire, United States Magistrate Judge. According to

plaintiff, defendant Claire received “reports” from plaintiff – in the form of a number civil rights

complaints against various government officials – of “attempted murders” but failed to redress

his grievances. Plaintiff claims that “defendant Monica Miller failed to act upon reports, and

corroborating circumstantial evidence indicating District Court Judge Alison Claire is

deliberately preventing plaintiff from redressing acts of attempted murder by delaying the

screening of civil complaints.” 

Plaintiff’s allegations are vague and conclusory in that they do not indicate any

specific conduct by the named defendants such that they could be on fair notice of plaintiff’s

claims. Morever, plaintiff’s underlying claim – that defendant Claire acted improperly with

respect to screening his civil rights complaints – is barred by the doctrine of absolute judicial

immunity. See Schucker v. Rockwood, 846 F.2d 1202, 1204 (9th Cir. 1988) (per curiam). 

Because it does not appear possible that the deficiencies identified herein can be

cured by amending the complaint, plaintiff is not entitled to leave to amend prior to dismissal of

the entire action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

2

Case 2:15-cv-01687-GEB-CMK Document 10 Filed 02/24/16 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

Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that this action be dismissed

for failure to state a claim.

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 14 days

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of

objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal. 

See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: February 23, 2016

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3

Case 2:15-cv-01687-GEB-CMK Document 10 Filed 02/24/16 Page 3 of 3