(PS) Chiu v. The President of US

E.D. California

(PS) Chiu v. The President of US

DecidedJanuary 17, 2025

Docket2:25-cv-00155

StatusUnknown

This text of (PS) Chiu v. The President of US ((PS) Chiu v. The President of US) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

(PS) Chiu v. The President of US, (E.D. Cal. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TAIFUSIN CHIU, Case No. 2:25-cv-0155-DAD-JDP (PS) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER; FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 THE PRESIDENT OF U.S.,

15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff filed a complaint purporting to assert claims against the President of the United 18 States, together with an application to proceed in forma pauperis. His complaint, however, fails 19 to state a claim, and I will recommend that it be dismissed. I will grant plaintiff’s application to 20 proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, which makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. 21 §§ 1915(a)(1) and (2). 22 Screening and Pleading Requirements 23 A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief, 24 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 25 face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility standard does not 26 require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 27 662, 678 (2009). If the allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere 28 possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not 1 identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024, 2 1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that 3 give rise to an enforceable right to relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264 4 n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (citations omitted). 5 The court must construe a pro se litigant’s complaint liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 6 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). The court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s complaint “if it 7 appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which 8 would entitle him to relief.” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2017). 9 However, “‘a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements 10 of the claim that were not initially pled.’” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 11 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)). 12 Analysis 13 The complaint is largely incoherent and fails to assert any cause of action against either 14 defendant. See generally ECF No. 1. The complaint contains nonsensical sentences and provides 15 no allegations of alleged wrongdoing. For example, plaintiff writes, “A pink diamond creates as 16 small as rice as 0 and creates as big as sky and land and beyond and infinite bail, free, destroy, 17 and remove Father of God and Mother . . . .” Id. at 1. 18 The complaint fails to comport with Rule 8’s requirement that it present a short and plain 19 statement of plaintiff’s claims. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Plaintiff names “The President of 20 US/13M01095” as the defendant but asserts no discernable facts relating to him. Moreover, 21 plaintiff’s allegations do not identify any actions taken by defendant that could support a claim 22 for relief. See Jones v. Cmty. Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984) (“The plaintiff 23 must allege with at least some degree of particularity overt acts which defendants engaged in that 24 support the plaintiff’s claim.”). Plaintiff must allege with at least some degree of particularity 25 overt acts of defendants that support his claims. Id. 26 Plaintiff has filed several complaints within the last year that resemble in some manner the 27 instant complaint, and none have survived screening. See Chiu v. Trump, 2:22-cv-00764-KJM- 28 AC (PS) (E.D. Cal. May 11, 2022) (complaint dismissed without leave to amend and with 1 prejudice); Chiu v. President of the United States, 2:22-cv-00809-TLN-DB (PS) (E.D. Cal. Oct. 2 24, 2022) (complaint dismissed without leave to amend); Chiu v. Extra Storage Space, 2:23-cv- 3 00099-KJM-AC (PS) (E.D. Cal. Jan. 23, 2023) (complaint dismissed without leave to amend); 4 Chiu v. President of U.S., 2:23-cv-00098-KJM-JDP (PS) (E.D. Cal. July 11, 2023) (complaint 5 dismissed without leave to amend); Chiu v. Bank of America, 2:23-cv-01201-KJM-AC (PS) (E.D. 6 Cal. Aug. 28, 2023) (complaint dismissed without leave to amend); Chiu v. President of U.S., 7 2:23-cv-00835-DJC-JDP (PS) (E.D. Cal. Jan. 16, 2024) (complaint dismissed without leave to 8 amend); Chiu v. Bank of America, 2:23-cv-01200-KJM-JDP (PS) (E.D. Cal. Feb. 5, 2024) 9 (complaint dismissed without leave to amend). 10 The operative complaint should be dismissed for failure to state a claim. In light of the 11 complaint’s allegations, I find that granting plaintiff an opportunity to amend would not cure the 12 complaint’s deficiencies, and so I recommend that dismissal be without leave to amend. See 13 Schucker v. Rockwood, 846 F.2d 1202, 1203-04 (9th Cir. 1988) (per curiam) (“Dismissal of a pro 14 se complaint without leave to amend is proper only if it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of 15 the complaint could not be cured by amendment.”) (internal quotation marks and citations 16 omitted). 17 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiff’s request for leave to proceed in forma 18 pauperis, ECF No. 2, is granted. 19 Furthermore, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that: 20 1. Plaintiff’s complaint, ECF No. 1, be dismissed without leave to amend. 21 2. The Clerk of Court be directed to close this matter. 22 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 23 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 24 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 25 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 26 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 27 objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 28 parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 1 appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez 2 | v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: _ January 17, 2025 q-—— 6 JEREMY D. PETERSON 7 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

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 TAIFUSIN CHIU, Case No. 2:25-cv-0155-DAD-JDP (PS) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER; FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 THE PRESIDENT OF U.S.,

15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff filed a complaint purporting to assert claims against the President of the United 18 States, together with an application to proceed in forma pauperis. His complaint, however, fails 19 to state a claim, and I will recommend that it be dismissed. I will grant plaintiff’s application to 20 proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, which makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. 21 §§ 1915(a)(1) and (2). 22 Screening and Pleading Requirements 23 A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief, 24 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 25 face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility standard does not 26 require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 27 662, 678 (2009). If the allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere 28 possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not 1 identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024, 2 1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that 3 give rise to an enforceable right to relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264 4 n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (citations omitted). 5 The court must construe a pro se litigant’s complaint liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 6 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). The court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s complaint “if it 7 appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which 8 would entitle him to relief.” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2017). 9 However, “‘a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements 10 of the claim that were not initially pled.’” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 11 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)). 12 Analysis 13 The complaint is largely incoherent and fails to assert any cause of action against either 14 defendant. See generally ECF No. 1. The complaint contains nonsensical sentences and provides 15 no allegations of alleged wrongdoing. For example, plaintiff writes, “A pink diamond creates as 16 small as rice as 0 and creates as big as sky and land and beyond and infinite bail, free, destroy, 17 and remove Father of God and Mother . . . .” Id. at 1. 18 The complaint fails to comport with Rule 8’s requirement that it present a short and plain 19 statement of plaintiff’s claims. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Plaintiff names “The President of 20 US/13M01095” as the defendant but asserts no discernable facts relating to him. Moreover, 21 plaintiff’s allegations do not identify any actions taken by defendant that could support a claim 22 for relief. See Jones v. Cmty. Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984) (“The plaintiff 23 must allege with at least some degree of particularity overt acts which defendants engaged in that 24 support the plaintiff’s claim.”). Plaintiff must allege with at least some degree of particularity 25 overt acts of defendants that support his claims. Id. 26 Plaintiff has filed several complaints within the last year that resemble in some manner the 27 instant complaint, and none have survived screening. See Chiu v. Trump, 2:22-cv-00764-KJM- 28 AC (PS) (E.D. Cal. May 11, 2022) (complaint dismissed without leave to amend and with 1 prejudice); Chiu v. President of the United States, 2:22-cv-00809-TLN-DB (PS) (E.D. Cal. Oct. 2 24, 2022) (complaint dismissed without leave to amend); Chiu v. Extra Storage Space, 2:23-cv- 3 00099-KJM-AC (PS) (E.D. Cal. Jan. 23, 2023) (complaint dismissed without leave to amend); 4 Chiu v. President of U.S., 2:23-cv-00098-KJM-JDP (PS) (E.D. Cal. July 11, 2023) (complaint 5 dismissed without leave to amend); Chiu v. Bank of America, 2:23-cv-01201-KJM-AC (PS) (E.D. 6 Cal. Aug. 28, 2023) (complaint dismissed without leave to amend); Chiu v. President of U.S., 7 2:23-cv-00835-DJC-JDP (PS) (E.D. Cal. Jan. 16, 2024) (complaint dismissed without leave to 8 amend); Chiu v. Bank of America, 2:23-cv-01200-KJM-JDP (PS) (E.D. Cal. Feb. 5, 2024) 9 (complaint dismissed without leave to amend). 10 The operative complaint should be dismissed for failure to state a claim. In light of the 11 complaint’s allegations, I find that granting plaintiff an opportunity to amend would not cure the 12 complaint’s deficiencies, and so I recommend that dismissal be without leave to amend. See 13 Schucker v. Rockwood, 846 F.2d 1202, 1203-04 (9th Cir. 1988) (per curiam) (“Dismissal of a pro 14 se complaint without leave to amend is proper only if it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of 15 the complaint could not be cured by amendment.”) (internal quotation marks and citations 16 omitted). 17 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiff’s request for leave to proceed in forma 18 pauperis, ECF No. 2, is granted. 19 Furthermore, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that: 20 1. Plaintiff’s complaint, ECF No. 1, be dismissed without leave to amend. 21 2. The Clerk of Court be directed to close this matter. 22 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 23 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 24 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 25 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 26 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 27 objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 28 parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 1 appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez 2 | v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: _ January 17, 2025 q-—— 6 JEREMY D. PETERSON 7 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

(PS) Chiu v. The President of US, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ps-chiu-v-the-president-of-us-caed-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack