(PS)Nguyen v. Phuong

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: November 27, 2024
• Docket: 2:24-cv-03279
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 QUOC H. NGUYEN, No. 2:24-cv-3279 DAD AC PS 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER and 14 PHAN HI PHUONG, et al, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was accordingly referred to the 18 undersigned by E.D. Cal. 302(c)(21). Plaintiff has filed a request for leave to proceed in forma 19 pauperis (“IFP”), and has submitted the affidavit required by that statute. See 28 U.S.C. 20 §1915(a)(1). The motion to proceed IFP (ECF No. 2) will therefore be granted. 21 I. Screening 22 A. Standards 23 The federal IFP statute requires federal courts to dismiss a case if the action is legally 24 “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks 25 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). A 26 claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. Neitzke v. 27 Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court will 28 (1)accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in the complaint, unless they are clearly 1 baseless or fanciful, (2) construe those allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and 2 (3) resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor. See Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327; Von Saher v. Norton 3 Simon Museum of Art at Pasadena, 592 F.3d 954, 960 (9th Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 564 U.S. 4 1037 (2011). 5 The court applies the same rules of construction in determining whether the complaint 6 states a claim on which relief can be granted. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (court 7 must accept the allegations as true); Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974) (court must 8 construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff). Pro se pleadings are held to a 9 less stringent standard than those drafted by lawyers. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 10 (1972). However, the court need not accept as true conclusory allegations, unreasonable 11 inferences, or unwarranted deductions of fact. Western Mining Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d 618, 12 624 (9th Cir. 1981). A formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action does not suffice 13 to state a claim. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-57 (2007); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 14 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). 15 To state a claim on which relief may be granted, the plaintiff must allege enough facts “to 16 state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A claim has 17 facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the 18 reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 19 678. A pro se litigant is entitled to notice of the deficiencies in the complaint and an opportunity 20 to amend, unless the complaint’s deficiencies could not be cured by amendment. See Noll v. 21 Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987), superseded on other grounds by statute as stated in 22 Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir.2000)) (en banc). 23 B. The Complaint 24 The complaint does not identify any legal claim or basis for jurisdiction. ECF No. 1 at 3- 25 6. The entirety of plaintiff’s statement of claim reads as follows: “Killing grizzlie Bear. Ran over 26 Deer abandon the baby deer. For accusing.” Id. at 5. In the section of the form complaint in 27 which plaintiff is asked to identify the relief sought, plaintiff wrote “TRAN Phi Truong.” Id. at 7. 28 //// 1 C. Analysis 2 This complaint must be dismissed because it fails to state a claim upon which relief may 3 be granted and because it is legally frivolous. Plaintiff does not specify any cause of action, and 4 no potentially cognizable cause of action appears from the face of the complaint. Additionally, 5 plaintiff does not identify any relief that the court can provide. For all these reasons, the 6 complaint must be dismissed. 7 II. Leave to Amend is Not Appropriate 8 Leave to amend is not appropriate in this case. Ordinarily, pro se litigants are granted 9 liberal leave to amend. “Valid reasons for denying leave to amend include undue delay, bad faith, 10 prejudice, and futility.” California Architectural Bldg. Prod. v. Franciscan Ceramics, 818 F.2d 11 1466, 1472 (9th Cir. 1988). Here, given the defects described above, the undersigned finds that 12 leave to amend would be futile and should therefore not be granted. 13 III. Pro Se Plaintiff’s Summary 14 The Magistrate Judge is recommending that your case be dismissed because you do not 15 state a legal claim that can be heard in federal court. You may object to this recommendation 16 within 21 days if you wish to do so. 17 IV. Conclusion 18 Accordingly, the undersigned recommends that plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma 19 pauperis (ECF No. 2) be GRANTED but that the complaint (ECF No. 1) be DISMISSED. 20 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 21 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within twenty one days 22 after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 23 with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Id.; see also Local Rule 304(b). Such a document 24 should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure 25 to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s 26 order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 27 1156-57 (9th Cir. 1991). 28 1 | DATED: November 26, 2024 2 . ~ 3 Cttn— Ware ALLISON CLAIRE 4 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28