(PS) Chiu v. Lu Mien Church et al, No. 2:2023cv02215 - Document 14 (E.D. Cal. 2023)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 12/20/2023 RECOMMENDING that this action 1 be dismissed. These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to U.S. District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller. Objections to these F&Rs due within fourteen days.(Mena-Sanchez, L)

Download PDF

(PS) Chiu v. Lu Mien Church et al Doc. 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TAIFUSIN CHIU, 12 No. 2:23-cv-02215-KJM-CKD (PS) Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IU MIEN CHURCH, et al., et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Proceeding pro se, 1 plaintiff initiated this action on October 4, 2023, by filing a document 18 19 which was construed as plaintiff’s civil complaint. (ECF No. 1.) By order filed on October 31, 20 2023, the undersigned screened the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) and determined it 21 was subject to dismissal for failure to establish the court’s jurisdiction and failure to state a 22 cognizable claim for relief. (ECF No. 9.) Plaintiff was advised of the deficiencies in the complaint 23 and granted 30 days to file an amended complaint. (Id.) The time granted for plaintiff to file an 24 amended complaint has expired. Plaintiff has filed a document titled “Medal of Honor versus 25 Purple Heart” (ECF No. 10), which the undersigned construes as the amended complaint. 26 Subsequently, plaintiff filed two other untitled documents. (ECF Nos. 12, 13.) 27 28 1 Because plaintiff proceeds pro se, this matter is referred to the undersigned by Local Rule 302(c)(21) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 The amended complaint names Iu Mien Church, The President of the United States, and 2 Donald Trump as defendants. (See generally, ECF No. 10.) Like the original complaint, the 3 amended complaint does not satisfy Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which 4 requires that a complaint set forth the following: 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 (1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction, unless the court already has jurisdiction and the claim needs no new jurisdictional support; (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief; and (3) a demand for the relief sought, which may include relief in the alternative or different types of relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). The amended complaint does not contain discernable factual allegations in support of a 12 cause of action and does not clearly specify the relief plaintiff seeks. The amended complaint also 13 fails to establish the court’s subject matter jurisdiction over an actual case or controversy and 14 must be dismissed on that basis. See Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006); Fed. R. 15 Civ. P. 12(h)(3). 16 A pro se litigant is entitled to notice of the deficiencies in the complaint and an 17 opportunity to amend unless the complaint’s deficiencies cannot be cured by amendment. See 18 Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987). “A district court may deny leave to amend 19 when amendment would be futile.” Hartmann v. CDCR, 707 F.3d 1114, 1130 (9th Cir. 2013). In 20 this case, plaintiff has received notice of the deficiencies in the original complaint and an 21 opportunity to amend. It does not appear plaintiff attempted to comply with Rule 8 of the Federal 22 Rules of Civil procedure, or the court’s prior screening order, in filing the amended complaint. It 23 now plainly appears that plaintiff is unable to allege facts to state a cognizable claim. Thus, 24 granting further leave to amend would be futile. 25 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED as follows: 26 1. This action be dismissed for failure to state a claim; and 27 2. The Clerk of the Court be directed to close this case. 28 2 1 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 2 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days after 3 being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with 4 the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to 5 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file 6 objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. 7 Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 8 Dated: December 20, 2023 _____________________________________ CAROLYN K. DELANEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 11 12 8 Chiu.23cv2215.fr 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 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.