Richie Accime v. Cares Campus, et al.

Opinion

* * * RICHIE ACCIME, Case No. 3:25-CV-00701-MMD-CLB Plaintiff, REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE1 v. CARES CAMPUS, et al., Defendants. Before the Court is Plaintiff Richie Accime’s (“Accime”) application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1), and civil rights complaint (ECF No. 1-1). For the reasons stated below, the Court recommends that Accime’s in forma pauperis application, (ECF No. 1), be granted, and his complaint, (ECF No. 1-1), be dismissed, with prejudice. A person may be granted permission to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) if the person “submits an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets such [person] possesses [and] that the person is unable to pay such fees or give security therefore. Such affidavit shall state the nature of the action, defense or appeal and affiant’s belief that the person is entitled to redress.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (stating 28 U.S.C. § 1915 applies to all actions filed IFP, not just prisoner actions). Pursuant to Local Rule LSR 1-1: “Any person who is unable to prepay the fees in a civil case may apply to the court for leave to proceed [IFP]. The application must be made on the form provided by the court and must include a financial affidavit disclosing the applicant’s income, assets, expenses, and liabilities.” “[T]he supporting affidavit [must] state the facts as to [the] affiant’s poverty with some particularity, definiteness and certainty.” United States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938,

1 This Report and Recommendation is made to the Honorable Miranda M. Du, United States District Judge. The action was referred to the undersigned Magistrate 940 (9th Cir. 1981) (quotation marks and citation omitted). A litigant need not “be absolutely destitute to enjoy the benefits of the statute.” Adkins v. E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948). A review of the application to proceed IFP reveals Accime is unable to pay the filing fee. Accordingly, the Court recommends that the IFP application, (ECF No. 1), be granted. Prior to ordering service on any Defendant, the Court is required to screen an in forma pauperis complaint to determine whether dismissal is appropriate under certain circumstances. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126 (9th Cir. 2000) (noting the in forma pauperis statute at 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) requires a district court to dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint for the enumerated reasons). Such screening is required before a litigation proceeding in forma pauperis may proceed to serve a pleading. Glick v. Edwards, 803 F.3d 505, 507 (9th Cir. 2015). “[T]he court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that – (A) the allegations of poverty is untrue; or (B) the action or appeal – (i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(A), (B)(i)-(iii). Dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted is provided for in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) tracks that language. When reviewing the adequacy of a complaint under this statute, the court applies the same standard as is applied under Rule 12(b)(6). See, e.g., Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012) (“The standard for determining whether a plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is the same as the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) standard for failure to state a claim.”). Review under Rule 12(b)(6) is essentially a ruling 2000) (citation omitted). The Court must accept as true the allegations, construe the pleadings in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor. Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969) (citations omitted). Allegations in pro se complaints are “held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9 (1980) (internal quotations marks and citation omitted). A complaint must contain more than a “formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of actions,” it must contain factual allegations sufficient to “raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). “The pleading must contain something more . . . than . . . a statement of facts that merely creates a suspicion [of] a legally cognizable right of action.” Id. (citation and quotation marks omitted). At a minimum, a plaintiff should include “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 570; see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). A dismissal should not be without leave to amend unless it is clear from the face of the complaint the action is frivolous and could not be amended to state a federal claim, or the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the action. See Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995); O’Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 616 (9th Cir. 1990). In his complaint, Accime sues Defendants Cares Campus, Kelly “night supervisor”, Breanna, and Allied Security Night Supervisor (collectively referred to as “Defendants”). (ECF No. 1-1 at 2.) Accime’s complaint alleges that Defendants discriminated against him and violated his federally protected rights based on the following: while he was “in the lobby of the main building,” he “had a right to consume bottled drinks,” and without warning “and immediately” he was given a “sit [indecipherable].” (ECF No. 1-1 at 4.) Based on these facts, he alleges that he was “deprived of that right” citing to 18 U.S.C. § Even construing the allegations of Accime’s complaint liberally, the Court cannot conceive or construe any specific set of circumstances under which these conclusory statements would give rise to any federal constitutional or statutory right. The complaint is vague and provides little, to no, information. Dismissal on those grounds alone is appropriate. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires that a complaint contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, in order to give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (quotation and alteration omitted). Accime’s largely incomprehensible narrative makes it impossible for the Court to identify the factual or legal basis for his claims. Further, Accime does not provide sufficient information to determine which causes of action he wishes to proceed under, how each alleged defendant was involved in the alleged violation, nor does he show how he is entitled to the relief sought. Moreover, to the extent that he is attempting to allege a claim for “deprivation of rights” under 18 U.S.C. § 241, this is a criminal statute. “[A] private citizen lacks a judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution or nonproseuction of another.” Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 619 (1973); see also Tia v. Crim. Investig. Demanded as Set Forth, 441 Fed. Appx. 457, 458 (9th Cir. 2011) (affirming dismissal of “request for criminal investigation into the alleged RICO conspiracy” because the plaintiff “lack[ed] standing to compel an investigation or prosecution of another person”). Accime therefore lacks standing to prosecute criminal statutes. Accordingly, Accime states no claim upon which relief may be granted and this action should therefore be dismissed with prejudice. Leave to amend is not appropriate because the deficiencies in Accime’s complaint cannot be cured by amendment, making amendment futile as there is no statutory or constitutional right to “consume bottled drinks” as alleged in the complaint. See Cato, 70 F.3d at 1106. /// IV. CONCLUSION For good cause appearing and for the reasons stated above, the Court recommends that Accime’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, (ECF No. 1), be 4) granted, and his complaint, (ECF No. 1-1), be dismissed, with prejudice, as amendment would be futile. The parties are advised: 1. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c) and Rule IB 3-2 of the Local Rules of Practice, the parties may file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation within fourteen days of receipt. These objections should be entitled “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation” and should be accompanied by points and authorities for consideration by the District Court. 2. This Report and Recommendation is not an appealable order and any notice of appeal pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1) should not be filed until entry of the District Court’s judgment. V. RECOMMENDATION IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that Accime’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, (ECF No. 1), be GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the Clerk FILE the complaint, (ECF No. 1- 19} 1). IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that Accime’s complaint, (ECF No. 1-1), be DISMISSED, WITH PREJUDICE. IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that this action be CLOSED, and judgment be entered accordingly. DATED: December 8, 2025. TT » UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE gq