(PC) Brown v. Miller et al, No. 2:2015cv01687 - Document 10 (E.D. Cal. 2016)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison on 2/23/16 RECOMMENDING that this action be dismissed for failure to state a claim. Referred to Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr.; Objections to F&R due within 14 days.(Dillon, M)

Download PDF

(PC) Brown v. Miller et al Doc. 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DEXTER BROWN, 12 13 No. 2:15-CV-1687-GEB-CMK-P Plaintiff, vs. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 MONICA MILLER, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 19 / Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s complaint (Doc. 1). 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). 26 This means that claims must be stated simply, concisely, and directly. See McHenry v. Renne, 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996) (referring to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e)(1)). These rules are satisfied 2 if the complaint gives the defendant fair notice of the plaintiff’s claim and the grounds upon 3 which it rests. See Kimes v. Stone, 84 F.3d 1121, 1129 (9th Cir. 1996). Because plaintiff must 4 allege with at least some degree of particularity overt acts by specific defendants which support 5 the claims, vague and conclusory allegations fail to satisfy this standard. Additionally, it is 6 impossible for the court to conduct the screening required by law when the allegations are vague 7 and conclusory. 8 Plaintiff names as defendants Monica Miller, Special Agent for the Federal 9 Bureau of Investigations, and Alison Claire, United States Magistrate Judge. According to 10 plaintiff, defendant Claire received “reports” from plaintiff – in the form of a number civil rights 11 complaints against various government officials – of “attempted murders” but failed to redress 12 his grievances. Plaintiff claims that “defendant Monica Miller failed to act upon reports, and 13 corroborating circumstantial evidence indicating District Court Judge Alison Claire is 14 deliberately preventing plaintiff from redressing acts of attempted murder by delaying the 15 screening of civil complaints.” 16 Plaintiff’s allegations are vague and conclusory in that they do not indicate any 17 specific conduct by the named defendants such that they could be on fair notice of plaintiff’s 18 claims. Morever, plaintiff’s underlying claim – that defendant Claire acted improperly with 19 respect to screening his civil rights complaints – is barred by the doctrine of absolute judicial 20 immunity. See Schucker v. Rockwood, 846 F.2d 1202, 1204 (9th Cir. 1988) (per curiam). 21 Because it does not appear possible that the deficiencies identified herein can be 22 cured by amending the complaint, plaintiff is not entitled to leave to amend prior to dismissal of 23 the entire action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 2 1 2 Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that this action be dismissed for failure to state a claim. 3 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 4 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days 5 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 6 objections with the court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of 7 objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal. 8 See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 9 10 11 12 DATED: February 23, 2016 ______________________________________ CRAIG M. KELLISON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.