1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHRIS JONATHAN EPPERSON, Case No. 1:23-cv-00495-JLT-BAM 12 Plaintiff, SCREENING ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO AMEND 13 v. (Doc. 1) 14 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff Chris Jonathan Epperson (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, 18 initiated this civil action against the United States of America on April 3, 2023. (Doc. 1.) 19 Plaintiff’s complaint is currently before the Court for screening. 20 I. Screening Requirement and Standard 21 The Court screens complaints brought by persons proceeding in pro se and in forma 22 pauperis. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Plaintiff’s complaint, or any portion thereof, is subject to 23 dismissal if it is frivolous or malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be 24 granted, or if it seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 25 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 26 A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 27 pleader is entitled to relief . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not 28 required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 1 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell 2 Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). While a plaintiff’s allegations are taken as 3 true, courts “are not required to indulge unwarranted inferences.” Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 4 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 5 To survive screening, Plaintiff’s claims must be facially plausible, which requires 6 sufficient factual detail to allow the Court to reasonably infer that each named defendant is liable 7 for the misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quotation marks omitted); Moss v. U.S. Secret 8 Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The sheer possibility that a defendant acted unlawfully 9 is not sufficient, and mere consistency with liability falls short of satisfying the plausibility 10 standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quotation marks omitted); Moss, 572 F.3d at 969. 11 II. Summary of Plaintiff’s Allegations 12 Plaintiff resides in Sylmar, California, located in Los Angeles County. Plaintiff drafted 13 his complaint using the form provided by this Court. The caption of the complaint names the 14 United States of America as defendant. (Doc. 1.) However, the complaint form lists “Delaware” 15 as the defendant. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff identifies the basis for jurisdiction as federal question. In 16 the section in which he is asked to indicate which of his federal constitutional or federal statutory 17 rights have been violated, he lists the following: “Wheeler Act of Congress,” “Thomas 18 Jefferson,” and “House of Commons.” (Id. at 3-4.) Plaintiff specifies that the amount in 19 controversy is “500,000,000 fiscal year.” (Id. at 5.) The statement of claim section states as 20 follows: “The dont even like you messing with their powers. Federal dont cross state. Rule 11 21 “Executive Order 10958 Executive Order 1961.” (Id.) (unedited text). The requested relief 22 section lists “Article III Constitution,” “Chemical Weapons Convention Article 7,” Article I 23 impeachment,” and 497 motion to discreet.” (Id. at p. 6.) 24 In the accompanying Civil Cover Sheet, the nature of suit is listed as “Racketeer 25 Influenced and Corrupt Organizations.” (Doc. 1-1.) The U.S. Civil Statute is described as “497” 26 and cause of action is described as “472c Sec. 102(a).” (Id.) Plaintiff also checked the box for 27 class actions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. (Id.) 28 1 III. Discussion 2 Plaintiff’s complaint fails to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 and fails to 3 state a cognizable claim upon which relief may be granted. As Plaintiff is proceeding in pro se, 4 the Court will allow Plaintiff an opportunity to amend his complaint to the extent he can do so in 5 good faith. 6 A. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 7 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, a complaint must contain “a short and 8 plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). 9 Detailed factual allegations are not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause 10 of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 11 (citation omitted). Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 12 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. 13 at 570, 127 S.Ct. at 1974). While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are 14 not. Id.; see also Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556–557. 15 Plaintiff’s complaint is not a plain statement of his claims. While short, Plaintiff’s 16 complaint does not include any factual allegations. At a basic level, he does not state what 17 happened, when it happened, or who was involved. He also does not clearly identify his claims, 18 causes of action, or the relief that he is seeking. Without any factual allegations, the Court 19 cannot determine what Plaintiff is alleging or how defendants are alleged to be responsible. If 20 Plaintiff files an amended complaint, it should be a short and plain statement of his claims and it 21 must include factual allegations related to his claims that identify what happened, when it 22 happened, and who was involved. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. 23 B. Class Action 24 Plaintiff’s civil cover sheet indicates that the complaint is a class action under Federal 25 Rule of Civil Procedure 23. (Doc. 1-1.) Insofar as Plaintiff is attempting to assert claims on 26 behalf of other individuals, he may not do so. Plaintiff may only represent his own legal 27 interests; he may not represent the legal interests of other individuals. “A litigant appearing in 28 propria persona has no authority to represent anyone other than himself.” Russell v. United 1 States, 308 F.2d 78, 79 (9th Cir. 1962). “Although a non-attorney may appear in propria persona 2 in his own behalf, that privilege is personal to him. He has no authority to appear as an attorney 3 for others than himself.” C.E. Pope Equity Trust v. U.S., 818 F.2d 696, 697 (9th Cir. 1987) 4 (citations omitted). 5 C.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHRIS JONATHAN EPPERSON, Case No. 1:23-cv-00495-JLT-BAM 12 Plaintiff, SCREENING ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO AMEND 13 v. (Doc. 1) 14 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff Chris Jonathan Epperson (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, 18 initiated this civil action against the United States of America on April 3, 2023. (Doc. 1.) 19 Plaintiff’s complaint is currently before the Court for screening. 20 I. Screening Requirement and Standard 21 The Court screens complaints brought by persons proceeding in pro se and in forma 22 pauperis. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Plaintiff’s complaint, or any portion thereof, is subject to 23 dismissal if it is frivolous or malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be 24 granted, or if it seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 25 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 26 A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 27 pleader is entitled to relief . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not 28 required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 1 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell 2 Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). While a plaintiff’s allegations are taken as 3 true, courts “are not required to indulge unwarranted inferences.” Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 4 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 5 To survive screening, Plaintiff’s claims must be facially plausible, which requires 6 sufficient factual detail to allow the Court to reasonably infer that each named defendant is liable 7 for the misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quotation marks omitted); Moss v. U.S. Secret 8 Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The sheer possibility that a defendant acted unlawfully 9 is not sufficient, and mere consistency with liability falls short of satisfying the plausibility 10 standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quotation marks omitted); Moss, 572 F.3d at 969. 11 II. Summary of Plaintiff’s Allegations 12 Plaintiff resides in Sylmar, California, located in Los Angeles County. Plaintiff drafted 13 his complaint using the form provided by this Court. The caption of the complaint names the 14 United States of America as defendant. (Doc. 1.) However, the complaint form lists “Delaware” 15 as the defendant. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff identifies the basis for jurisdiction as federal question. In 16 the section in which he is asked to indicate which of his federal constitutional or federal statutory 17 rights have been violated, he lists the following: “Wheeler Act of Congress,” “Thomas 18 Jefferson,” and “House of Commons.” (Id. at 3-4.) Plaintiff specifies that the amount in 19 controversy is “500,000,000 fiscal year.” (Id. at 5.) The statement of claim section states as 20 follows: “The dont even like you messing with their powers. Federal dont cross state. Rule 11 21 “Executive Order 10958 Executive Order 1961.” (Id.) (unedited text). The requested relief 22 section lists “Article III Constitution,” “Chemical Weapons Convention Article 7,” Article I 23 impeachment,” and 497 motion to discreet.” (Id. at p. 6.) 24 In the accompanying Civil Cover Sheet, the nature of suit is listed as “Racketeer 25 Influenced and Corrupt Organizations.” (Doc. 1-1.) The U.S. Civil Statute is described as “497” 26 and cause of action is described as “472c Sec. 102(a).” (Id.) Plaintiff also checked the box for 27 class actions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. (Id.) 28 1 III. Discussion 2 Plaintiff’s complaint fails to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 and fails to 3 state a cognizable claim upon which relief may be granted. As Plaintiff is proceeding in pro se, 4 the Court will allow Plaintiff an opportunity to amend his complaint to the extent he can do so in 5 good faith. 6 A. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 7 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, a complaint must contain “a short and 8 plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). 9 Detailed factual allegations are not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause 10 of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 11 (citation omitted). Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 12 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. 13 at 570, 127 S.Ct. at 1974). While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are 14 not. Id.; see also Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556–557. 15 Plaintiff’s complaint is not a plain statement of his claims. While short, Plaintiff’s 16 complaint does not include any factual allegations. At a basic level, he does not state what 17 happened, when it happened, or who was involved. He also does not clearly identify his claims, 18 causes of action, or the relief that he is seeking. Without any factual allegations, the Court 19 cannot determine what Plaintiff is alleging or how defendants are alleged to be responsible. If 20 Plaintiff files an amended complaint, it should be a short and plain statement of his claims and it 21 must include factual allegations related to his claims that identify what happened, when it 22 happened, and who was involved. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. 23 B. Class Action 24 Plaintiff’s civil cover sheet indicates that the complaint is a class action under Federal 25 Rule of Civil Procedure 23. (Doc. 1-1.) Insofar as Plaintiff is attempting to assert claims on 26 behalf of other individuals, he may not do so. Plaintiff may only represent his own legal 27 interests; he may not represent the legal interests of other individuals. “A litigant appearing in 28 propria persona has no authority to represent anyone other than himself.” Russell v. United 1 States, 308 F.2d 78, 79 (9th Cir. 1962). “Although a non-attorney may appear in propria persona 2 in his own behalf, that privilege is personal to him. He has no authority to appear as an attorney 3 for others than himself.” C.E. Pope Equity Trust v. U.S., 818 F.2d 696, 697 (9th Cir. 1987) 4 (citations omitted). 5 C. RICO 6 To the extent Plaintiff is attempting to bring a claim under the Racketeer Influenced and 7 Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”) against the United States, such a claim is improper. 8 “Absent a waiver, sovereign immunity shields the Federal Government and its agencies from 9 suit.” F.D.I.C. v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 475 (1994). “The federal racketeering statute, RICO, does 10 not waive sovereign immunity for claims against the United States.” A.C.L. Computers & 11 Software, Inc. v. United States, No. 16-CV-01485-SK, 2017 WL 6060267, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 12 13, 2017), aff’d, 727 F. App’x 376 (9th Cir. 2018) (citation omitted). 13 D. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10 14 The complaint's caption must contain the names of the defendants discussed in the body 15 of the complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a) (Rule 10(a) requires that plaintiffs include the names 16 of all parties in the caption of the complaint). The Court cannot have the complaint served on any 17 of the parties discussed in the body of the Complaint. See Soto v. Bd. of Prison Term, No. CIV S- 18 06-2502 RRB DAD P, 2007 WL 2947573, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 9, 2007) (The Court cannot 19 order service of the Complaint without the names of the parties included in the caption of the 20 Complaint). Rule 10 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires, among other things, that a 21 complaint (a) state the names of “all the parties” in the caption; and (b) state a party's claims in 22 sequentially “numbered paragraphs, each limited as far as practicable to a single set of 23 circumstances.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 10; Callahan v. Unknown, No. 1:22-CV 00221 BAM PC, 2022 24 WL 1215260, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 25, 2022), report and recommendation adopted, No. 1:22- 25 CV-221 JLT BAM, 2022 WL 1782559 (E.D. Cal. June 1, 2022); Thomas v. Weaver, No. 1:22- 26 CV-01492-BAM, 2022 WL 17822132, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2022) (same). 27 IV. Conclusion and Order 28 Plaintiff’s complaint fails to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 and fails to 1 state a cognizable claim upon which relief may be granted. As Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the 2 Court will grant Plaintiff an opportunity to amend his complaint to cure these deficiencies to the 3 extent he is able to do so in good faith. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000). 4 Plaintiff’s amended complaint should be brief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), but it must state what 5 each named defendant did that led to the deprivation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights, Iqbal, 6 556 U.S. at 678-79. Although accepted as true, the “[f]actual allegations must be [sufficient] to 7 raise a right to relief above the speculative level . . . .” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citations 8 omitted). Additionally, Plaintiff may not change the nature of this suit by adding new, unrelated 9 claims in his first amended complaint. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (no 10 “buckshot” complaints). 11 Finally, Plaintiff is advised that an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. 12 Lacey v. Maricopa Cty., 693 F.3d 896, 927 (9th Cir. 2012). Therefore, Plaintiff’s amended 13 complaint must be “complete in itself without reference to the prior or superseded pleading.” 14 Local Rule 220. 15 Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 16 1. The Clerk’s Office shall send Plaintiff a complaint form; 17 2. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file a 18 first amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified by the Court in this order or file a 19 notice of voluntary dismissal; and 20 3. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint in compliance with this order, then 21 the Court will recommend dismissal of this action, with prejudice, for failure to obey a court 22 order and for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24
25 Dated: April 6, 2023 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 26
27 28