(PS) Peden, et al., v. Bernard et al
Filing
3
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 5/10/2023 RECOMMENDING that 1 Complaint be dismissed without leave to amend; 2 Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis be denied; and this action be closed. Matters referred to Judge Troy L. Nunley. Objections due within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations. (Perdue, C.)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
WESLEY PEDEN; BRUNO BERRY,
12
No. 2:23-cv-0524 TLN DB PS
Plaintiffs,
13
v.
14
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
GEORGE BERNARD, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
17
Plaintiff Wesley Peden is proceeding in this action pro se. 1 This matter was referred to
18
the undersigned in accordance with Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Pending
19
before the court are plaintiff’s complaint and motion to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28
20
U.S.C. § 1915. (ECF Nos. 1 & 2.) The complaint alleges that the defendants are engaging in
21
“threats, intimidation, and harassment[.]” (Compl. (ECF No. 1) at 2.)
The court is required to screen complaints brought by parties proceeding in forma
22
23
pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); see also Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir.
24
2000) (en banc). Here, plaintiff’s complaint is deficient. Accordingly, for the reasons stated
25
below, the undersigned will recommend that plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed without leave to
26
amend and this action be closed.
27
28
1
Although the complaint purports to be on behalf of plaintiffs Wesley Peden and Bruno Berry,
only plaintiff Wesley Peden has signed the complaint.
1
1
2
I.
Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis
Plaintiff Wesley Peden’s in forma pauperis application makes the financial showing
3
required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). However, plaintiff Bruno Berry has not filed an in forma
4
pauperis application. Filing fees must be paid unless each plaintiff applies for and is granted
5
leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
6
Moreover, a determination that a plaintiff qualifies financially for in forma pauperis status
7
does not complete the inquiry required by the statute. “‘A district court may deny leave to
8
proceed in forma pauperis at the outset if it appears from the face of the proposed complaint that
9
the action is frivolous or without merit.’” Minetti v. Port of Seattle, 152 F.3d 1113, 1115 (9th
10
Cir. 1998) (quoting Tripati v. First Nat. Bank & Trust, 821 F.2d 1368, 1370 (9th Cir. 1987)); see
11
also McGee v. Department of Child Support Services, 584 Fed. Appx. 638 (9th Cir. 2014) (“the
12
district court did not abuse its discretion by denying McGee’s request to proceed IFP because it
13
appears from the face of the amended complaint that McGee’s action is frivolous or without
14
merit”); Smart v. Heinze, 347 F.2d 114, 116 (9th Cir. 1965) (“It is the duty of the District Court
15
to examine any application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis to determine whether the
16
proposed proceeding has merit and if it appears that the proceeding is without merit, the court is
17
bound to deny a motion seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis.”).
18
The court must dismiss an in forma pauperis case at any time if the allegation of poverty is
19
found to be untrue or if it is determined that the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a
20
claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against an immune defendant. See
21
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). A complaint is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis in law or
22
in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221,
23
1227-28 (9th Cir. 1984). Under this standard, a court must dismiss a complaint as frivolous
24
where it is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are
25
clearly baseless. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).
26
To state a claim on which relief may be granted, the plaintiff must allege “enough facts to
27
state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,
28
570 (2007). In considering whether a complaint states a cognizable claim, the court accepts as
2
1
true the material allegations in the complaint and construes the allegations in the light most
2
favorable to the plaintiff. Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984); Hosp. Bldg. Co. v.
3
Trustees of Rex Hosp., 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976); Love v. United States, 915 F.2d 1242, 1245
4
(9th Cir. 1989). Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by
5
lawyers. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). However, the court need not accept as true
6
conclusory allegations, unreasonable inferences, or unwarranted deductions of fact. Western
7
Mining Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d 618, 624 (9th Cir. 1981).
8
9
The minimum requirements for a civil complaint in federal court, as explained by Rule 8
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Rules”), are as follows:
10
A pleading which sets forth a claim for relief . . . shall contain (1) a
short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the court’s
jurisdiction depends . . . , (2) a short and plain statement of the claim
showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and (3) a demand for
judgment for the relief the pleader seeks.
11
12
13
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a).
14
II.
Plaintiff’s Complaint
15
“[T]he in forma pauperis statute . . . ‘accords judges not only the authority to dismiss a
16
claim based on an indisputably meritless legal theory, but also the unusual power to pierce the
17
veil of the complaint’s factual allegations and dismiss those claims whose factual contentions are
18
clearly baseless.’” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32 (1992) (quoting Neitzke, 490 U.S. at
19
327). “Examples of the latter class are claims describing fantastic or delusional scenarios, claims
20
with which federal district judges are all too familiar.” Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 328.
21
Here, the complaint alleges that the defendants, to whom plaintiff pays monthly rent, are
22
threatening plaintiff because plaintiff is “currently working with the Department of Justice, in
23
Washington D.C., to provide information, evidence, and intelligence concerning the
24
defendants[.]” (Compl. (ECF No. 1) at 1-2.) The defendants are allegedly “working in concert
25
with . . . Agents of the Federal Government, and a Federally licensed Non Profit Organization, in
26
the commission of numerous Federal Felonies.” (Id. at 1.)
27
28
In this regard, the complaint’s allegations are delusional and frivolous. See Denton, 504
U.S. at 33 (“a finding of factual frivolousness is appropriate when the facts alleged rise to the
3
1
level of the irrational or the wholly incredible, whether or not there are judicially noticeable facts
2
available to contradict them”).
3
III.
Leave to Amend
4
For the reasons stated above, plaintiff’s complaint should be dismissed. The undersigned
5
has carefully considered whether plaintiff may amend the complaint to state a claim upon which
6
relief can be granted. “Valid reasons for denying leave to amend include undue delay, bad faith,
7
prejudice, and futility.” California Architectural Bldg. Prod. v. Franciscan Ceramics, 818 F.2d
8
1466, 1472 (9th Cir. 1988); see also Klamath-Lake Pharm. Ass’n v. Klamath Med. Serv. Bureau,
9
701 F.2d 1276, 1293 (9th Cir. 1983) (holding that while leave to amend shall be freely given, the
10
court does not have to allow futile amendments).
Here, given the defects noted above, the undersigned finds that granting plaintiff leave to
11
12
amend would be futile.
13
CONCLUSION
14
Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:
15
1. Plaintiff’s March 20, 2023 complaint (ECF No. 1) be dismissed without leave to
16
amend;
2. Plaintiff’s March 20, 2023 application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) be
17
18
denied; and
19
3. This action be closed.
20
These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge
21
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days
22
after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections
23
with the court. A document containing objections should be titled “Objections to Magistrate
24
Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within
25
////
26
////
27
////
28
////
4
1
the specified time may, under certain circumstances, waive the right to appeal the District Court’s
2
order. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
3
DATED: May 10, 2023
4
/s/ DEBORAH BARNES
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
DLB:6
DB/orders/orders.pro se/peden0524.dism.f&rs
25
26
27
28
5
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?