1 2 3 4 5 8 9 MICHAEL GRIGGS Case No. 1:25-cv-00613-KES-SKO
10 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND 11 v. RECOMMENDATIONS, RECOMMENDING THAT THIS CASE 12 B ST E A D T I E SM A I C SS L E A D IM F OR FAILURE TO 13 JOHN BANUELOS, (Docs. 1, 4, 5) 14 Defendant. TWENTY-ONE-DAY DEADLINE 15
16 17 Plaintiff Michael Griggs is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this action. Plaintiff 18 filed his complaint on May 23, 2025. (Doc. 1). On May 28, 2025, the undersigned screened the 19 complaint, concluding that Plaintiff stated no cognizable claims but providing Plaintiff with 20 options to proceed. (Doc. 4.) Plaintiff filed a response to the screening order on June 2, 2025, 21 notifying the Court that he wished to stand on his complaint. (Doc. 5.) 22 Accordingly, for the reasons set forth below, the undersigned recommends that this action 23 be dismissed for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff has twenty-one days from the date of service of 24 these findings and recommendations to file his objections. 26 In cases where the plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, a court is required to screen 27 each case and shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that the allegation of 28 poverty is untrue, or that the action or appeal is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon 1 which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from 2 such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). See also Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845 (9th Cir. 2001) 3 (dismissal required of in forma pauperis proceedings which seek monetary relief from immune 4 defendants); Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995) (district court has 5 discretion to dismiss in forma pauperis complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)); Barren v. 6 Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193 (9th Cir. 1998) (affirming sua sponte dismissal for failure to state a 7 claim). If a court determines that a complaint fails to state a claim, leave to amend may be granted 8 to the extent that the deficiencies of the complaint can be cured by amendment. Lopez v. Smith, 9 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 10 In determining whether a complaint fails to state a claim, the court uses the same pleading 11 standard used under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). A complaint must contain “a short and 12 plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). 13 Detailed factual allegations are not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause 14 of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 15 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). A complaint 16 may be dismissed as a matter of law for failure to state a claim for two reasons: (1) lack of a 17 cognizable legal theory; or (2) insufficient facts under a cognizable legal theory. See Balistreri v. 18 Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). Plaintiff must allege a minimum factual 19 and legal basis for each claim that is sufficient to give each defendant fair notice of what the 20 plaintiff’s claims are and the grounds upon which they rest. See, e.g., Brazil v. U.S. Dep’t of the 21 Navy, 66 F.3d 193, 199 (9th Cir. 1995); McKeever v. Block, 932 F.2d 795, 798 (9th Cir. 1991). 22 In reviewing the pro se complaint, a court is to liberally construe the pleadings and accept 23 as true all factual allegations contained in the complaint. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 24 (2007). Although a court must accept as true all factual allegations contained in a complaint, a 25 court need not accept a plaintiff’s legal conclusions as true. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. “[A] 26 complaint [that] pleads facts that are ‘merely consistent with’ a defendant’s liability . . . ‘stops 27 short of the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief.’” Id. (quoting 28 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557). 2 Plaintiff drafted his complaint using the general complaint form provided by this Court. 3 The complaint names “John Banuelos (S254) Fax Unit” as the defendant. (Doc. 1 at 1, see id. at 4 2.) Plaintiff states that subject matter jurisdiction is based on federal question, (id. at 3), pursuant 5 to “California Penal Code 118.1,” (id. at 4.) 6 The statement of claim section of the complaint states: 7 Sgt John Banuelos out Right lied in Police Report. He altered videos. He left out videos that would prove I was telling the truth. He covered for someone with no 8 license or insurance. Impounded my car Took me to jail and I had License and 9 Insurance. Had to bail out but Lady that Ran into the back of was Let go and allowed to keep her car even though not having License nor insurance. 10 11 (Id. at 5.) Regarding the relief sought, Plaintiff writes “Under 42 U.S.C. 1983 Im seeking 25,000 12 [in] compensatory Damages. And 25,000 in punitive Damages.” (Id. at 6.) 14 A. Rule 8 15 Rule 8 states that a complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim 16 showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Here, Plaintiff’s complaint 17 violates Rule 8 because it does not contain a short and plain statement of the claim demonstrating 18 that he is entitled to relief. 19 Although the Federal Rules use a flexible pleading policy, Plaintiff is required to give fair 20 notice to Defendant of the basis of the claim and must allege facts that support the elements of the 21 claim plainly and succinctly. A complaint must contain sufficient factual allegations to give the 22 defendant fair notice of the claim and the grounds upon which it rests. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. 23 Here, there are insufficient allegations in the complaint to identify the basis of the claim. 24 Plaintiff alleges Defendant “out Right lied,” “covered for someone,” and “altered videos” (Doc. 1 25 at 5), but he does not allege a violation of a federal constitutional right, nor does he explain how 26 any of Defendant’s alleges actions gave rise to such a violation. This does not give the defendant 27 “fair notice” of the claims against which they must defend and the facts and legal theories that 28 give rise to the claims. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). 2 The undersigned has screened Plaintiff’s complaint and finds that it fails to state any 3 cognizable claims. Plaintiff was provided with applicable legal standards, an explanation why his 4 complaint failed to state a claim, and leave to file an amended complaint, but Plaintiff chose to 5 stand on his complaint. 6 Accordingly, based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 7 1. This action be dismissed for failure to state a claim; and 8 2. The Clerk of Court be directed to close the case.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 8 9 MICHAEL GRIGGS Case No. 1:25-cv-00613-KES-SKO
10 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND 11 v. RECOMMENDATIONS, RECOMMENDING THAT THIS CASE 12 B ST E A D T I E SM A I C SS L E A D IM F OR FAILURE TO 13 JOHN BANUELOS, (Docs. 1, 4, 5) 14 Defendant. TWENTY-ONE-DAY DEADLINE 15
16 17 Plaintiff Michael Griggs is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this action. Plaintiff 18 filed his complaint on May 23, 2025. (Doc. 1). On May 28, 2025, the undersigned screened the 19 complaint, concluding that Plaintiff stated no cognizable claims but providing Plaintiff with 20 options to proceed. (Doc. 4.) Plaintiff filed a response to the screening order on June 2, 2025, 21 notifying the Court that he wished to stand on his complaint. (Doc. 5.) 22 Accordingly, for the reasons set forth below, the undersigned recommends that this action 23 be dismissed for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff has twenty-one days from the date of service of 24 these findings and recommendations to file his objections. 26 In cases where the plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, a court is required to screen 27 each case and shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that the allegation of 28 poverty is untrue, or that the action or appeal is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon 1 which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from 2 such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). See also Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845 (9th Cir. 2001) 3 (dismissal required of in forma pauperis proceedings which seek monetary relief from immune 4 defendants); Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995) (district court has 5 discretion to dismiss in forma pauperis complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)); Barren v. 6 Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193 (9th Cir. 1998) (affirming sua sponte dismissal for failure to state a 7 claim). If a court determines that a complaint fails to state a claim, leave to amend may be granted 8 to the extent that the deficiencies of the complaint can be cured by amendment. Lopez v. Smith, 9 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 10 In determining whether a complaint fails to state a claim, the court uses the same pleading 11 standard used under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). A complaint must contain “a short and 12 plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). 13 Detailed factual allegations are not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause 14 of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 15 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). A complaint 16 may be dismissed as a matter of law for failure to state a claim for two reasons: (1) lack of a 17 cognizable legal theory; or (2) insufficient facts under a cognizable legal theory. See Balistreri v. 18 Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). Plaintiff must allege a minimum factual 19 and legal basis for each claim that is sufficient to give each defendant fair notice of what the 20 plaintiff’s claims are and the grounds upon which they rest. See, e.g., Brazil v. U.S. Dep’t of the 21 Navy, 66 F.3d 193, 199 (9th Cir. 1995); McKeever v. Block, 932 F.2d 795, 798 (9th Cir. 1991). 22 In reviewing the pro se complaint, a court is to liberally construe the pleadings and accept 23 as true all factual allegations contained in the complaint. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 24 (2007). Although a court must accept as true all factual allegations contained in a complaint, a 25 court need not accept a plaintiff’s legal conclusions as true. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. “[A] 26 complaint [that] pleads facts that are ‘merely consistent with’ a defendant’s liability . . . ‘stops 27 short of the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief.’” Id. (quoting 28 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557). 2 Plaintiff drafted his complaint using the general complaint form provided by this Court. 3 The complaint names “John Banuelos (S254) Fax Unit” as the defendant. (Doc. 1 at 1, see id. at 4 2.) Plaintiff states that subject matter jurisdiction is based on federal question, (id. at 3), pursuant 5 to “California Penal Code 118.1,” (id. at 4.) 6 The statement of claim section of the complaint states: 7 Sgt John Banuelos out Right lied in Police Report. He altered videos. He left out videos that would prove I was telling the truth. He covered for someone with no 8 license or insurance. Impounded my car Took me to jail and I had License and 9 Insurance. Had to bail out but Lady that Ran into the back of was Let go and allowed to keep her car even though not having License nor insurance. 10 11 (Id. at 5.) Regarding the relief sought, Plaintiff writes “Under 42 U.S.C. 1983 Im seeking 25,000 12 [in] compensatory Damages. And 25,000 in punitive Damages.” (Id. at 6.) 14 A. Rule 8 15 Rule 8 states that a complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim 16 showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Here, Plaintiff’s complaint 17 violates Rule 8 because it does not contain a short and plain statement of the claim demonstrating 18 that he is entitled to relief. 19 Although the Federal Rules use a flexible pleading policy, Plaintiff is required to give fair 20 notice to Defendant of the basis of the claim and must allege facts that support the elements of the 21 claim plainly and succinctly. A complaint must contain sufficient factual allegations to give the 22 defendant fair notice of the claim and the grounds upon which it rests. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. 23 Here, there are insufficient allegations in the complaint to identify the basis of the claim. 24 Plaintiff alleges Defendant “out Right lied,” “covered for someone,” and “altered videos” (Doc. 1 25 at 5), but he does not allege a violation of a federal constitutional right, nor does he explain how 26 any of Defendant’s alleges actions gave rise to such a violation. This does not give the defendant 27 “fair notice” of the claims against which they must defend and the facts and legal theories that 28 give rise to the claims. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). 2 The undersigned has screened Plaintiff’s complaint and finds that it fails to state any 3 cognizable claims. Plaintiff was provided with applicable legal standards, an explanation why his 4 complaint failed to state a claim, and leave to file an amended complaint, but Plaintiff chose to 5 stand on his complaint. 6 Accordingly, based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 7 1. This action be dismissed for failure to state a claim; and 8 2. The Clerk of Court be directed to close the case. 9 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the district judge assigned to this 10 action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and this Court’s Local Rule 304. Within twenty-one 11 (21) days of service of this recommendation, any party may file written objections to these 12 findings and recommendations with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document 13 should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The 14 district judge will review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations pursuant to 15 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the 16 specified time may waive the right to appeal the district judge’s order. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 17 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014). 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19
20 Dated: June 3, 2025 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28