(PS) Sullivan v. Walmart/Spark Inc., No. 2:2023cv01397 - Document 5 (E.D. Cal. 2024)

Court Description: ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson on 3/15/24 ORDERING that plaintiff's 2 request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. It is RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff's 1 complaint be DISMISSED without leave to amend for failure to state a cognizable claim and the Clerk be directed to close the case. Matter REFERRED to District Judge Troy L. Nunley. Within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. (Kastilahn, A)

Download PDF

(PS) Sullivan v. Walmart/Spark Inc. Doc. 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JEREMY L. SULLIVAN, 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Plaintiff, Case No. 2:23-cv-01397-TLN-JDP (PS) ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS v. WALMART/SPARK, Inc., ECF No. 2 Defendant. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS THAT PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT BE DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM ECF No. 1 OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN DAYS 21 22 Plaintiff brings this action against defendant Walmart Inc. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff’s 23 allegations are frivolous, and I recommend that his complaint be dismissed without leave to 24 amend. I will grant his application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, which makes the 25 showing required by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(a)(1) and (2). 26 27 28 1 Dockets.Justia.com Screening and Pleading Requirements 1 2 A federal court must screen the complaint of any claimant seeking permission to proceed 3 in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The court must identify any cognizable claims and 4 dismiss any portion of the complaint that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon 5 which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 6 relief. Id. 7 A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief, 8 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 9 face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility standard does not 10 require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 11 662, 678 (2009). If the allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere 12 possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not 13 identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024, 14 1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that 15 give rise to an enforceable right to relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264 16 n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (citations omitted). 17 The court must construe a pro se litigant’s complaint liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 18 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). The court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s complaint “if it 19 appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which 20 would entitle him to relief.” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2017). 21 However, “‘a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements 22 of the claim that were not initially pled.’” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 23 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)). 24 25 Analysis The complaint fails to state a cognizable claim. Plaintiff requests over five billion dollars 26 in damages, ECF No. 1 at 1, and alleges that a cult that is “politically connected” and affiliated 27 with “LGBTQ” persons broadly has infiltrated various courts, law enforcement agencies, and 28 other arms of government, id. at 3. He alleges that the “LGBTQ are responsible for so many 2 1 deaths/atrocities . . . .” Id. at 3. These claims, construed even in the most generous terms 2 possible, are frivolous and unsuited to proceed. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989) 3 (noting that the term “‘frivolous,’ when applied to a complaint, embraces not only the inarguable 4 legal conclusion, but also the fanciful factual allegation.”). Little else need be said. The 5 purported existence of a nebulous conspiracy of LGBTQ individuals, embedded in various levels 6 of government and committing atrocities, is so out of step with discernable reality that it can only 7 be deemed fanciful or frivolous. This action should be dismissed. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiff’s request for leave to proceed in forma 8 9 pauperis, ECF No. 2, is granted. 10 Further, it is RECOMMENDED that: 11 1. Plaintiff’s complaint, ECF No. 1, be DISMISSED without leave to amend for failure to 12 state a cognizable claim. 13 2. The Clerk of Court be directed to close the case. 14 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 15 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 16 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 17 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 18 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 19 objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 20 parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 21 appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez 22 v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 23 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 Dated: 26 27 March 15, 2024 JEREMY D. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 28 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.