Raj Singh v. Kiran Rawat, et al.

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: September 24, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-02401
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RAJ SINGH, No. 2:25-cv-2401-DC-CKD PS 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 KIRAN RAWAT, et al., FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 15 Defendants. 16

17 18 Plaintiff Raj Singh1 initiated this action on August 22, 2025, with a pro se complaint and a 19 motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). (ECF Nos. 1, 2.) This matter is referred to the 20 undersigned magistrate judge pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). For 21 the reasons that follow, the undersigned recommends plaintiff’s application to proceed IFP be 22 denied and the complaint be dismissed as frivolous. 23 I. IFP 24 In order to commence a civil action, a plaintiff must either pay the $350.00 filing fee and 25 the $55.00 administrative fee or file an application requesting leave to proceed IFP. See 28 U.S.C. 26 §§ 1914(a), 1915(a). The court may authorize the commencement of an action without 27 1 Plaintiff Raj Singh also files cases in this district under the alias Raghvendra Singh. See In re 28 Singh, 551 B.R. 54, 57 (Bankr. E.D. Cal. 2016). 1 prepayment of fees by an individual who submits an affidavit evidencing an inability to pay such 2 fees. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 3 Plaintiff’s affidavit in support of the request to proceed in forma pauperis is incomplete. 4 Plaintiff left blank multiple sections of the form, including the section requiring plaintiff to 5 declare income other than gross pay or wages. (ECF No. 2 at 1.) Because the affidavit is 6 incomplete, it fails to establish plaintiff is entitled to prosecute this case without paying the 7 required fees. See United States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 940 (9th Cir. 1981) (The affidavit 8 must “state the facts as to affiant’s poverty with some particularity, definiteness and certainty.”) 9 In the alternative, plaintiff’s IFP application may be denied because this action is frivolous and 10 without merit. See Minetti v. Port of Seattle, 152 F.3d 1113, 1115 (9th Cir. 1998) (“‘A district 11 court may deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis at the outset if it appears from the face of the 12 proposed complaint that the action is frivolous or without merit.’”) (quoting Tripati v. First Nat. 13 Bank & Tr., 821 F.2d 1368, 1370 (9th Cir. 1987)). 14 II. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) Screening 15 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the court must screen every in forma pauperis 16 proceeding, and must order dismissal of the case if it is “frivolous or malicious,” “fails to state a 17 claim on which relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is 18 immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 19 (2000) (en banc). Plaintiff’s complaint should be dismissed because it merely repeats 20 unsuccessful claims plaintiff has already litigated. 21 The named defendants are Kiran Rawat, Sargent Trudau, Police Chief Bobby Davis, and 22 City of Elk Grove. (ECF No. 1 at 2-3.) Plaintiff alleges the City of Elk Grove police conspired 23 with Rawat, plaintiff’s wife, on October 14, 2022, and “many other dates” to kick plaintiff out of 24 his property without his medications, phone, car, driving license, and clothes, making him 25 homeless. (Id. at 4-5.) Plaintiff seeks damages. (Id. at 5.) 26 The allegations are far too vague to establish the court’s subject matter jurisdiction or state 27 a claim for relief. Moreover, this is at least the third action plaintiff has filed in this district court 28 alleging defendants Trudau, Davis, and the City of Elk Grove violated his rights in connection 1 with the incident that took place on October 14, 2022. See Singh v. City of Elk Grove, No. 2:24- 2 CV-02455-KJM-JDP (PS), 2024 WL 4527370, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 18, 2024), report and 3 recommendation adopted, No. 2:24-CV-2455-KJM-JDP (PS), 2025 WL 19120 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 2, 4 2025); Singh v. City of Elk Grove, No. 2:23-CV-00057-TLN-CKD (PS), 2023 WL 2776026, at 5 *2 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 4, 2023), report and recommendation adopted, No. 2:23-CV-00057-TLN- 6 CKD, 2023 WL 5021570 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 7, 2023). Plaintiff’s addition of his wife as a defendant 7 to the present case does not assist plaintiff to establish the court’s subject matter jurisdiction or 8 state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 9 Thus, plaintiff was already informed in two prior cases that his allegations about the 10 October 14, 2022 incident fail to state a claim. See Singh v. City of Elk Grove, 2024 WL 11 4527370, at *1 (“The complaint should be dismissed because this court lacks subject matter 12 jurisdiction and because this court previously dismissed plaintiff's complaint regarding the same 13 October 14, 2022 incident.”). Despite being so informed, plaintiff has repeated substantially the 14 same allegations in this newly filed case against the same three defendants and his wife. This 15 action is frivolous within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) and should be dismissed as such. 16 See Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 n.2 (9th Cir. 1995) (a complaint that “merely 17 repeats pending or previously litigated claims” may be dismissed as frivolous under the authority 18 of 28 U.S.C. § 1915). Leave to amend should not be granted. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 19 1129 (9th Cir. 2000) (“[D]istrict courts are only required to grant leave to amend if a complaint 20 can possibly be saved. Courts are not required to grant leave to amend if a complaint lacks merit 21 entirely.”). 22 III. Recommendation 23 In accordance with the above, IT IS RECOMMENDED as follows: 24 1. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) be denied. 25 2. Plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). 26 3. The Clerk of Court be directed to close this case. 27 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 28 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days after 1 | being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with 2 || the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to 3 || Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections within the 4 | specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 5 |} 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 6 | Dated: September 24, 2025 / a8 } i | / p , {a ce

8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 |g singh2sev2401.sem.ti 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28