Martinez v. Lopez et al

Filing 9

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending Dismissing Action as Frivolous; Objections Due within Twenty (20) Days signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 3/8/2018. Referred to Judge Dale A. Drozd. (Sant Agata, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GABRIEL MARTINEZ, Plaintiff, 12 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING DISMISSING ACTION AS FRIVOLOUS v. 13 14 Case No. 1:18-cv-00221-DAD-SAB (ECF No. 1) AMY LOPEZ, et al., OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN TWENTY DAYS Defendants. 15 16 17 Plaintiff Gabriel Martinez is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 18 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s complaint, filed on 19 February 13, 2018. 20 I. 21 SCREENING REQUIREMENT 22 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 23 governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). 24 The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are 25 legally “frivolous or malicious,” that “fail[] to state a claim on which relief may be granted,” or 26 that “seek[] monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 27 1915(e)(2)(B). 28 / / / 1 1 A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 2 pleader is entitled to relief. . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not 3 required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 4 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell 5 Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Moreover, Plaintiff must demonstrate 6 that each defendant personally participated in the deprivation of Plaintiff’s rights. Jones v. 7 Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). 8 Prisoners proceeding pro se in civil rights actions are entitled to have their pleadings 9 liberally construed and to have any doubt resolved in their favor. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 10 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted). To survive screening, Plaintiff’s claims must be 11 facially plausible, which requires sufficient factual detail to allow the Court to reasonably infer 12 that each named defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79; Moss 13 v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The “sheer possibility that a defendant 14 has acted unlawfully” is not sufficient, and “facts that are ‘merely consistent with’ a defendant’s 15 liability” falls short of satisfying the plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Moss, 572 16 F.3d at 969. 17 II. 18 DISCUSSION 19 A pleading is “factual[ly] frivolous[ ]” when “the facts alleged rise to the level of the 20 irrational or the wholly incredible, whether or not there are judicially noticeable facts available to 21 contradict them.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 25-26 (1992). Section 1915 gives courts 22 “the unusual power to pierce the veil” of a complaint such as that filed by the plaintiff and to 23 “dismiss those claims whose factual contentions are clearly baseless.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 24 U.S. 319, 327 (1989). Clearly baseless factual allegations include those “that are ‘fanciful,’ 25 ‘fantastic,’ and ‘delusional.’ ” Denton, 504 U.S. at 32-33 (quoting Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 325, 327, 26 328). Here, the Court finds that Plaintiff has alleged claims that are frivolous, and therefore, 27 must be dismissed. 28 / / / 2 1 Plaintiff alleges that he is a man king by inherent “rite” and that “wrongdoers have 2 conspired treason against whom they owe allegiance to.” (Compl. 1, ECF No. 1.) They have 3 forged instruments that have “kidnapped the princess held for her ransom”, “imprisoned the king 4 into slavery”, and “liquidate the king’s trusts.” (Id.) Plaintiff alleges treason under 18 U.S.C. 5 2381 and RICO. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that he has an inherent right to be protected from injury 6 from corrupt organizations and treason. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff brings this action against judges of 7 the Superior Court of California, the Fresno County District Attorney and prosecutors, federal 8 defenders, and the doctor who performed a psychiatric evaluation on him. (Id. at 3.) Plaintiff is 9 seeking to have the named defendants imprisoned for treason. (Id. at 1.) The claim that Plaintiff 10 is a king and that the named defendants have committed treason and RICO violations is fanciful 11 and delusional. Plaintiff’s complaint presents irrational and illogical claims which fail to provide 12 any comprehensible factual basis and, therefore, are wholly incredible. The Court finds that 13 Plaintiff’s factual allegations are grounded in delusion, are facially irrational, and wholly 14 incredible. See Denton, 504 U.S. at 32-33; Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 325, 3273, 328. Plaintiff’s 15 complaint is therefore frivolous. 16 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court shall dismiss a prisoner’s complaint or portion 17 of the complaint against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity 18 that is “frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 19 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). Under Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, leave to 20 amend shall be freely given when justice so requires. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). In this instance, 21 no amendment could cure the deficiencies discussed above. Nunes v. Ashcroft, 375 F.3d 805, 22 808 (9th Cir. 2004; Washington v. Lowe’s HIW Inc., 75 F. Supp. 3d 1240, 1245 (N.D. Cal. 23 2014), appeal dismissed (Feb. 25, 2015). Accordingly, the Court finds that granting leave to 24 amend would be futile and this action should be dismissed without leave to amend. 25 III. 26 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION 27 Plaintiff’s complaint contains factual allegations that are grounded in delusion, are 28 facially irrational and wholly incredible and are therefore frivolous. Further, the claims alleged 3 1 in the complaint are incapable of being cured by amendment so granting leave to amend would 2 be futile. Ebner v. Fresh, Inc., 838 F.3d 958, 968 (9th Cir. 2016). Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s complaint be 3 4 dismissed without leave to amend pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) as frivolous. This findings and recommendations is submitted to the district judge assigned to this 5 6 action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and this Court’s Local Rule 304. Within twenty 7 (20) days of service of this recommendation, Plaintiff may file written objections to this findings 8 and recommendations with the Court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to 9 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The district judge will review the 10 magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). 11 Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the 12 waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing 13 Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 Dated: March 8, 2018 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?