1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 JAMES ONEAL BELVINS, JR., No. 2:24-cv-02077-DJC-EFB (PC) 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. ORDER 13 PLACER COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY OFFICE, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 Plaintiff is a county jail inmate proceeding without counsel in this action brought pursuant 17 to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has also filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 2. 18 For the reasons that follow, plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted, and 19 the complaint will be dismissed with leave to amend. 20 Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 21 Plaintiff’s application makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and (2). 22 Accordingly, by separate order, the court directs the agency having custody of plaintiff to collect 23 and forward the appropriate monthly payments for the filing fee as set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 24 1915(b)(1) and (2). 25 Screening Standards 26 Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek 27 redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. 28 § 1915A(a). The court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion 1 of the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which 2 relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 3 relief.” Id. § 1915A(b). 4 This standard is echoed in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), which requires that courts dismiss a 5 case in which a plaintiff proceeds in forma pauperis at any time if it determines, among other 6 things, that the action “is frivolous or malicious,” “fails to state a claim on which relief may be 7 granted,” or “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” “[The] 8 term ‘frivolous,’ when applied to a complaint, embraces not only the inarguable legal conclusion, 9 but also the fanciful factual allegation.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989) 10 (discussing the predecessor to modern § 1915(e)(2), former § 1915(d)). Thus, § 1915(e)(2) 11 allows judges to dismiss a claim based on factual allegations that are clearly baseless, such as 12 facts describing “fantastic or delusional scenarios.” Id. at 327-38. 13 A pro se plaintiff, like other litigants, must satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule 8(a) 14 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a)(2) “requires a complaint to include a short and 15 plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, in order to give the 16 defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. 17 Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554, 562-563 (2007) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957)). 18 While the complaint must comply with the “short and plaint statement” requirements of Rule 8, 19 its allegations must also include the specificity required by Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 20 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). 21 To avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more than “naked 22 assertions,” “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of 23 action.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555-557. In other words, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of 24 a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 25 678. 26 Furthermore, a claim upon which the court can grant relief must have facial plausibility. 27 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual 28 content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 1 misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. When considering whether a complaint states a 2 claim upon which relief can be granted, the court must accept the allegations as true, Erickson v. 3 Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007), and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the 4 plaintiff, see Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974). 5 Discussion 6 Plaintiff’s allegations are insensible and appear to be based on a faulty construction of 7 various statutes. For example, plaintiff alleges:
8 December 9th 1945 international organization immunities act relinquished every public office of the United States to the United Nations. Title 8 U.S.C. section 9 1481 states once an oath of office is taken citizenship is relinquished. Thus you become a foreign entity, agency, or state. That means every public office is a 10 foreign state, including all political subdivisions, every court is considered a separate foreign entity. . . . Meaning the proper procedures were not followed 11 before I was placed in custody and taken to court in the jurisdiction of a foreign state. 12 13 ECF No. 1 at 3. And: “They must have adequate proof from the Department of State and from 14 the federal court that they have stepped inside a federal court in front of a federal jury and 15 provided them with adequate proof that I’m a corporation.” Id. at 4. He sues the Placer County 16 District Attorney Office and Superior Court but provides no factual context for his claims against 17 these entities. 18 A complaint that is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim cannot survive screening 19 under section 1915A(b) and must be dismissed. A claim is frivolous “when the facts alleged arise 20 to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible, whether or not there are judicially noticeable 21 facts available to contradict them.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992); see also 22 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989) (holding that “§ 1915(d)’s term ‘frivolous,’ when 23 applied to a complaint, embraces not only the inarguable legal conclusion, but also the fanciful 24 factual allegation.”). Plaintiff’s allegations are impossible to understand clearly and apparently 25 premised on fanciful legal theories rather than existing law. As currently drafted, the complaint is 26 frivolous. 27 In addition, the state superior court and the prosecutor’s office likely enjoy immunity from 28 plaintiff’s suit. “State prosecutors are absolutely immune from § 1983 actions when performing 1 functions intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process.” Garmon v. Cty. 2 Of L.A., 828 F.3d 837, 842-43 (9th Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks omitted). The county 3 superior court enjoys sovereign immunity under the 11th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as 4 an arm of the state of California. Munoz v. Super. Ct.,
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 JAMES ONEAL BELVINS, JR., No. 2:24-cv-02077-DJC-EFB (PC) 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. ORDER 13 PLACER COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY OFFICE, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 Plaintiff is a county jail inmate proceeding without counsel in this action brought pursuant 17 to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has also filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 2. 18 For the reasons that follow, plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted, and 19 the complaint will be dismissed with leave to amend. 20 Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 21 Plaintiff’s application makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and (2). 22 Accordingly, by separate order, the court directs the agency having custody of plaintiff to collect 23 and forward the appropriate monthly payments for the filing fee as set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 24 1915(b)(1) and (2). 25 Screening Standards 26 Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek 27 redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. 28 § 1915A(a). The court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion 1 of the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which 2 relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 3 relief.” Id. § 1915A(b). 4 This standard is echoed in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), which requires that courts dismiss a 5 case in which a plaintiff proceeds in forma pauperis at any time if it determines, among other 6 things, that the action “is frivolous or malicious,” “fails to state a claim on which relief may be 7 granted,” or “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” “[The] 8 term ‘frivolous,’ when applied to a complaint, embraces not only the inarguable legal conclusion, 9 but also the fanciful factual allegation.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989) 10 (discussing the predecessor to modern § 1915(e)(2), former § 1915(d)). Thus, § 1915(e)(2) 11 allows judges to dismiss a claim based on factual allegations that are clearly baseless, such as 12 facts describing “fantastic or delusional scenarios.” Id. at 327-38. 13 A pro se plaintiff, like other litigants, must satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule 8(a) 14 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a)(2) “requires a complaint to include a short and 15 plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, in order to give the 16 defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. 17 Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554, 562-563 (2007) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957)). 18 While the complaint must comply with the “short and plaint statement” requirements of Rule 8, 19 its allegations must also include the specificity required by Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 20 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). 21 To avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more than “naked 22 assertions,” “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of 23 action.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555-557. In other words, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of 24 a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 25 678. 26 Furthermore, a claim upon which the court can grant relief must have facial plausibility. 27 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual 28 content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 1 misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. When considering whether a complaint states a 2 claim upon which relief can be granted, the court must accept the allegations as true, Erickson v. 3 Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007), and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the 4 plaintiff, see Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974). 5 Discussion 6 Plaintiff’s allegations are insensible and appear to be based on a faulty construction of 7 various statutes. For example, plaintiff alleges:
8 December 9th 1945 international organization immunities act relinquished every public office of the United States to the United Nations. Title 8 U.S.C. section 9 1481 states once an oath of office is taken citizenship is relinquished. Thus you become a foreign entity, agency, or state. That means every public office is a 10 foreign state, including all political subdivisions, every court is considered a separate foreign entity. . . . Meaning the proper procedures were not followed 11 before I was placed in custody and taken to court in the jurisdiction of a foreign state. 12 13 ECF No. 1 at 3. And: “They must have adequate proof from the Department of State and from 14 the federal court that they have stepped inside a federal court in front of a federal jury and 15 provided them with adequate proof that I’m a corporation.” Id. at 4. He sues the Placer County 16 District Attorney Office and Superior Court but provides no factual context for his claims against 17 these entities. 18 A complaint that is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim cannot survive screening 19 under section 1915A(b) and must be dismissed. A claim is frivolous “when the facts alleged arise 20 to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible, whether or not there are judicially noticeable 21 facts available to contradict them.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992); see also 22 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989) (holding that “§ 1915(d)’s term ‘frivolous,’ when 23 applied to a complaint, embraces not only the inarguable legal conclusion, but also the fanciful 24 factual allegation.”). Plaintiff’s allegations are impossible to understand clearly and apparently 25 premised on fanciful legal theories rather than existing law. As currently drafted, the complaint is 26 frivolous. 27 In addition, the state superior court and the prosecutor’s office likely enjoy immunity from 28 plaintiff’s suit. “State prosecutors are absolutely immune from § 1983 actions when performing 1 functions intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process.” Garmon v. Cty. 2 Of L.A., 828 F.3d 837, 842-43 (9th Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks omitted). The county 3 superior court enjoys sovereign immunity under the 11th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as 4 an arm of the state of California. Munoz v. Super. Ct., 91 F.4th 977, 980 (9th Cir. 2024). 5 In an abundance of caution, plaintiff will be given an opportunity to amend his complaint 6 to cure the deficiencies. 7 Leave to Amend 8 Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed with leave to amend. If plaintiff chooses to file an 9 amended complaint it should observe the following: 10 Any amended complaint must identify as a defendant only persons who personally 11 participated in a substantial way in depriving him of a federal constitutional right. Johnson v. 12 Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978) (a person subjects another to the deprivation of a 13 constitutional right if he does an act, participates in another’s act or omits to perform an act he is 14 legally required to do that causes the alleged deprivation). The complaint should also describe, 15 in sufficient detail, how each defendant personally violated or participated in the violation of his 16 rights. The court will not infer the existence of allegations that have not been explicitly set forth 17 in the amended complaint. 18 The amended complaint must contain a caption including the names of all defendants. 19 Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a). 20 Plaintiff may not change the nature of this suit by alleging new, unrelated claims. See 21 George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). 22 Any amended complaint must be written or typed so that it so that it is complete in itself 23 without reference to any earlier filed complaint. E.D. Cal. L.R. 220. This is because an amended 24 complaint supersedes any earlier filed complaint, and once an amended complaint is filed, the 25 earlier filed complaint no longer serves any function in the case. See Forsyth v. Humana, 114 26 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997) (the “‘amended complaint supersedes the original, the latter 27 being treated thereafter as non-existent.’”) (quoting Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 28 1967)). ] Finally, the court notes that any amended complaint should be as concise as possible in 2 | fulfilling the above requirements. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Plaintiff should avoid the inclusion of 3 || statements which have no bearing on his legal claims and, to the extent possible, simply provide 4 || the facts of the incidents of which he complains (1.e., when the incident happened, who was 5 || involved, and how the incident unfolded). 6 Conclusion 7 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 8 1. Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is GRANTED; 9 2. Plaintiff shall pay the statutory filing fee of $350. All payments shall be collected in 10 accordance with the notice to the custodial agency filed concurrently herewith; 11 3. Plaintiff's complaint (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED with leave to amend within 30 days 12 from the date of service of this order; and 13 4. Failure to comply with this order may result in dismissal of this action for the reasons 14 stated herein. Datnd EBL 16 || Dated: February 20, 2025 Za) 7 eLZAEMNV EDMUND F,. BRENNAN 17 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28