(PC) Kishor v. Stoller

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: March 14, 2024
• Docket: 2:23-cv-01356
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHANDRA KISHOR, Case No. 2:23-cv-01356-TLN-JDP (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S THIRD MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA 14 JOHN STOLLER, et al., PAUPERIS, DENYING HIS FIRST TWO MOTIONS AS MOOT, AND DENYING 15 Defendants. HIS MOTION FOR INTRODUCTION OF EVIDENCE 16 ECF Nos. 4, 13, 17, & 20 17 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 18 THAT THE SECOND AMENDED 19 COMPLAINT FAILS TO STATE A COGNIZABLE CLAIM AND 20 RECOMMENDING THAT THIS ACTION BE DISMISSED 21 ECF No. 18 22 OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN 23 DAYS 24 Plaintiff, a state prisoner at California State Prison, Solano, has filed a second amended 25 complaint that is nearly incomprehensible. As best I can tell, his claims relate to the validity of 26 his conviction and, thus, are unsuited to a § 1983 action. I will grant the latest of plaintiff’s 27 applications to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 17, and deny his previous two as moot, ECF 28 1 Nos. 4 & 13. 2 Screening Order 3 I. Screening and Pleading Requirements 4 A federal court must screen a prisoner’s complaint that seeks relief against a governmental 5 entity, officer, or employee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must identify any cognizable 6 claims and dismiss any portion of the complaint that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a 7 claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is 8 immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b)(1), (2). 9 A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief, 10 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 11 face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility standard does not 12 require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 13 662, 678 (2009). If the allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere 14 possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not 15 identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024, 16 1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that 17 give rise to an enforceable right to relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264 18 n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (citations omitted). 19 The court must construe a pro se litigant’s complaint liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 20 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). The court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s complaint “if it 21 appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which 22 would entitle him to relief.” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2017). 23 However, “‘a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements 24 of the claim that were not initially pled.’” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 25 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)). 26 II. Analysis 27 Plaintiff’s complaint is nearly impossible to understand. As best I can tell, however, it 28 relates to an allegedly “illegal plea” that he was forced to accept in state court. ECF No. 18 at 2- 1 | 3. He makes vague references to cover-ups, excessive sentencing, and “kickbacks” between 2 | district attorneys and judges. /d. at 3-4. These allegations are almost certainly frivolous. 3 | Moreover, they are unsuited to a section 1983 action because success on any of them would 4 | necessarily imply that plaintiff's conviction is invalid. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487 5 | (1994). In light of the foregoing, I find that further opportunities to amend are unwarranted. 6 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 7 1. Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 17, is GRANTED. 8 2. Plaintiffs previous motions to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF Nos. 4 & 13, are 9 DENIED. 10 3. Plaintiff’s motion for introduction of evidence, ECF No. 20, is DENIED. If these 11 recommendations are rejected, he may renew it. 12 Further, it is RECOMMENDED that plaintiff's second amended complaint, ECF No. 18, 13 | be DISMISSED without leave to amend for failure to state a cognizable claim. 14 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 15 | assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(). Within fourteen days 16 | after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 17 | objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 18 | “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 19 | objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 20 | parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 21 appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez 22 | v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 23 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: _ March 13, 2024 □□ 26 JEREMY D. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE