(PS) Peden v. Zaman

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WESLEY ELVIS PEDEN, Case No. 2:23-cv-2267-KJM-JDP (PS) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 TARIQ ZAMAN, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff brings this action pro se, alleging that various wrongs associated with his 18 residency in a property owned by defendant Zaman. ECF No. 4 at 1-3. As articulated, the 19 complaint fails to put forth any basis for federal jurisdiction. I will give plaintiff one final 20 opportunity to file an amended complaint that explains why this case should proceed. 21 Screening and Pleading Requirements 22 A federal court must screen the complaint of any claimant seeking permission to proceed 23 in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The court must identify any cognizable claims and 24 dismiss any portion of the complaint that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon 25 which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 26 relief. Id. 27 A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief, 28 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 1 face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility standard does not 2 require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 3 662, 678 (2009). If the allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere 4 possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not 5 identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024, 6 1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that 7 give rise to an enforceable right to relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264 8 n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (citations omitted). 9 The court must construe a pro se litigant’s complaint liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 10 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). The court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s complaint “if it 11 appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which 12 would entitle him to relief.” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2017). 13 However, “‘a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements 14 of the claim that were not initially pled.’” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 15 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)). 16 Analysis 17 Plaintiff’s claims primarily concern issues with his residence in a property owned by 18 defendant Zaman. He claims that defendant Barnard “coerced, manipulated, or convinced” 19 federal probation officers to force him into Zaman’s residence, but offers no context or specific 20 explanation of this allegation. ECF No. 4 at 1. Plaintiff claims that this case should proceed on a 21 theory of conspiracy to defraud under 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 666(a)(1)(A) and also under 18 U.S.C. 22 § 242 for deprivation of constitutional rights. ECF No. 4 at 1, 3. Neither of these federal criminal 23 statutes provides for a private right of action, however. Newman v. Caliber Home Loans, Inc., 24 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 114754, 2018 WL 3361442, at *1 (S.D. Cal. July 10, 2018) (“Plaintiffs’ 25 first cause of action alleges conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 371. This is a criminal statute and does 26 not provide a private cause of action.”); Uziel v. Superior Court of Cal., 857 F. App’x 405, 406 27 (9th Cir. 2021) (18 U.S.C. § 242 does not provide a private right of action). Plaintiff alleges no 28 other basis for federal jurisdiction. 1 Plaintiff may amend his complaint one final time within thirty days of this order’s entry 2 | that explains why this case should proceed. He is advised that an amended complaint will 3 | supersede his current one and all claims and relevant exhibits must be contained in the new 4 | complaint without reference to its predecessor. If plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint 5 | within the deadline, I will recommend this action be dismissed for the reasons stated in this order. 6 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 7 1. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed with leave to amend. 8 2. Within thirty days from service of this order, plaintiff shall file either (1) an amended 9 | complaint or (2) notice of voluntary dismissal of this action without prejudice. 10 3. Failure to timely file either an amended complaint or notice of voluntary dismissal may 11 } result in the imposition of sanctions, including a recommendation that this action be dismissed 12 || with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 13 4. The Clerk of Court shall send plaintiff a complaint form with this order. 14 1s IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 | 1 Sty — Dated: _ November 7, 2024 17 JEREMY D. PETERSON 18 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28