Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-02337/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-02337-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
James Baker
Defendant
Dmitriy Yegorov
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 

DMITRIY YEGOROV, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

JAMES BAKER, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:19-cv-2337-MCE-EFB PS 

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

 Plaintiff seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915.1

 His 

declaration makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. §1915(a)(1) and (2). See ECF No. 2. 

Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 

 Determining that plaintiff may proceed in forma pauperis does not complete the required 

inquiry. Pursuant to § 1915(e)(2), the court must dismiss the case at any time if it determines the 

allegation of poverty is untrue, or if the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on 

which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against an immune defendant. As discussed 

below, plaintiff’s complaint must be dismissed for failure to state a claim. 

 Although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 

520-21 (1972), a complaint, or portion thereof, should be dismissed for failure to state a claim if it 

1

 This case, in which plaintiff is proceeding in propria persona, was referred to the 

undersigned under Local Rule 302(c)(21). See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

Case 2:19-cv-02337-MCE-EFB Document 4 Filed 03/19/20 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 

27 

28 

2 

fails to set forth “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. 

Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554, 562-563 (2007) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 

(1957)); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). “[A] plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of 

his ‘entitlement to relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of 

a cause of action’s elements will not do. Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to 

relief above the speculative level on the assumption that all of the complaint’s allegations are 

true.” Id. (citations omitted). Dismissal is appropriate based either on the lack of cognizable 

legal theories or the lack of pleading sufficient facts to support cognizable legal theories. 

Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). 

 Under this standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in 

question, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hosp. Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), construe the 

pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor, 

Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). A pro se plaintiff 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.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957)). 

 Plaintiff’s complaint consists of vague and fanciful allegations that fail to state a claim for 

relief. Plaintiff alleges former Secretary of State James Baker is the head of “British-Russian gay 

conspiracy.” ECF No. 1 at 2. He claims that defendant Baker paid money to a private attorney 

from Sacramento, California to “make Ukrainian terrorist.” Id. He further alleges that over the 

past fifteen years, “Ukrainian counsel committed multiple crimes” in the United States and 

violated rules of judicial conduct. Id. Plaintiff asserts a claim for violation of 18 U.S.C. § 241 

and seeks damages in the amount of “nine hundred trillion dollars.” Id. at 1, 3. 

 Plaintiff cannot succeed on his sole claim for violation of 18 U.S.C. § 241, which is a 

criminal statute that does not provide a private right of action. See Allen v. Gold Country Casino, 

464 F.3d 1044, 1048 (9th Cir. 2006) (affirming the dismissal claims under 18 U.S.C. § 241 

because it is a “criminal statute[] that do not give rise to civil liability”). More significantly, 

Case 2:19-cv-02337-MCE-EFB Document 4 Filed 03/19/20 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 

27 

28 

3 

plaintiff’s allegations are fanciful and frivolous, and could not plausibly support a claim for relief 

against former Secretary of State James Baker, the only named defendant. Denton v. Hernandez, 

504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992) (“[A] finding of factual frivolousness is appropriate when the facts alleged 

rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible . . . .”). Accordingly, it is recommended 

that plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed without leave to amend. See Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 

1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987) (while the court ordinarily would permit a pro se plaintiff to amend, 

leave to amend should not be granted where it appears amendment would be futile); California 

Architectural Bldg. Prod. V. Franciscan Ceramics, 818 F.2d 1466, 1472 (9th Cir. 1988) (“Valid 

reasons for denying leave to amend include undue delay, bad faith, prejudice, and futility.”). 

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

pauperis (ECF No. 2) is granted. 

 Further, it is RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed without leave to 

amend, and the Clerk be directed to close the 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 

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.” Failure to file objections 

within the specified time may waive the right to 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). 

DATED: March 19, 2020. 

Case 2:19-cv-02337-MCE-EFB Document 4 Filed 03/19/20 Page 3 of 3