(PS) Nee v. California State

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 NII NEE, No. 2:24-CV-3185-DC-DMC 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 CALIFORNIA STATE, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, brings this civil action. Pending before the 18 Court is Plaintiff’s first amended complaint. See ECF No. 14. 19 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief 20 against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. 21 § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if it: (1) is frivolous or 22 malicious; (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief 23 from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Moreover, 24 the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that complaints contain a “. . . short and plain 25 statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). This 26 means that claims must be stated simply, concisely, and directly. See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 27 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996) (referring to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e)(1)). These rules are satisfied if the 28 complaint gives the defendant fair notice of the plaintiff’s claim and the grounds upon which it 1 rests. See Kimes v. Stone, 84 F.3d 1121, 1129 (9th Cir. 1996). Because Plaintiff must allege 2 with at least some degree of particularity overt acts by specific defendants which support the 3 claims, vague and conclusory allegations fail to satisfy this standard. Additionally, it is 4 impossible for the Court to conduct the screening required by law when the allegations are vague 5 and conclusory. 6 7 I. DISCUSSION 8 A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 9 See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 10 (9th Cir. 1984). When applied to a complaint, the term “frivolous” embraces both the inarguable 11 legal conclusion and the fanciful factual allegation. See Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 325. The court 12 may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an indisputably meritless legal 13 theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Id. at 327. The critical inquiry is 14 whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual 15 basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1989); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227. 16 The court need not accept the allegations in the complaint as true, but must determine whether 17 they are fanciful, fantastic, or delusional. See Denson v Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992) 18 (quoting Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 328). Finally, a complaint may be dismissed as frivolous if it 19 merely repeats pending or previously litigated claims. See Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 20 1105 n.2 (9th Cir. 1995). 21 On April 24, 2025, the Court directed Plaintiff to file an amended complaint. See 22 ECF No. 13. There, the Court explained that the claims presented in Plaintiff's complaint were 23 frivolous, the complaint provided no facts or information about what rights were violated, and 24 Plaintiff failed to connect the facts presented to his allegations. See id. at 3. Plaintiff was provided 25 an opportunity to amend the complaint. See id. generally. Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint 26 on May 29, 2025. See ECF No. 14. 27 / / / 28 / / / ] As with the original complaint, the Court finds Plaintiff fails to state any 2 || cognizable claim against any Defendant and the claims presented are frivolous. Plaintiff failed to 3 || address the deficiencies identified in ECF No. 13. As with the original complaint, the first 4 || amended complaint makes the same broad assertion that Defendants violated the Two Row 5 || Wampum Treaty without providing facts to support this allegation. See ECF No. 14, pgs. 1-2. 6 || The only new information Plaintiff added were court documents from unrelated cases that 7 || Plaintiff filed in New York state. See id. at 8-22. 8 9 Il. CONCLUSION 10 Because it does not appear possible that the deficiencies identified herein can be 11 | cured by amending the complaint, Plaintiff is not entitled to leave to amend prior to dismissal of 12 || the entire action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 13 Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that this case be dismissed 14 | without leave to amend and with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be 15 | granted. 16 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 17 || Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within 14 days 18 | after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 19 || objections with the court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of 20 || objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal. See 21 | Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 22 23 || Dated: July 2, 2025 SS Co 24 DENNIS M. COTA 25 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 26 27 28