(PS) Chiu v. Trump, No. 2:2023cv02626 - Document 5 (E.D. Cal. 2023)

Court Description: ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson on 12/11/2023 GRANTING 2 Motion to Proceed IFP. It is hereby RECOMMENDED that the 1 Complaint be dismissed without leave to amend. Referred to Judge Troy L. Nunley. Objections due within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations. (Clemente Licea, O)

Download PDF

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TAIFUSIN CHIU, 12 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS Plaintiff, 13 14 Case No. 2:23-cv-02626-TLN-JDP (PS) v. DONALD TRUMP, et al., 15 ECF No. 2 Defendants. 16 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS THAT PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT BE DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS 17 ECF No. 1 18 OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN DAYS 19 20 Plaintiff filed a complaint purporting to assert claims against “All Iu mien from all 21 churches, outside culture, and neighborhood/The President of Us, Donald Trump,” together with 22 an application to proceed in forma pauperis. His complaint, however, fails to state a claim, and I 23 will recommend that it be dismissed as frivolous. I will grant plaintiff’s application to proceed in 24 forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, which makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(a)(1) and 25 (2). 26 27 28 Screening and Pleading Requirements A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 1 1 face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility standard does not 2 require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 3 662, 678 (2009). If the allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere 4 possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not 5 identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024, 6 1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that 7 give rise to an enforceable right to relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264 8 n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (citations omitted). 9 The court must construe a pro se litigant’s complaint liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 10 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). The court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s complaint “if it 11 appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which 12 would entitle him to relief.” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2017). 13 However, “‘a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements 14 of the claim that were not initially pled.’” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 15 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)). 16 17 Analysis The complaint is unintelligible and fails to assert any cause of action.1 See generally ECF 18 No. 1. For example, plaintiff writes “Medal of Honor versus Purple Heart The President Show 19 Down 900 Septillion Number 999 USD Quora’s Number President Show Down and USD Infinite 20 President Show down Maximum Number to Infinite USD President Fight above and beyond and 21 infinite debt . . . .” Id. at 1. A large portion of the complaint consists of nonsensical sentences 22 and phrases. 23 The complaint fails to comport with Rule 8’s requirement that it present a short and plain 24 statement of plaintiff’s claims. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Indeed, the court is unsure of who plaintiff 25 names as a defendant, and, in any event, the complaint asserts no discernable facts relating to any 26 defendant. Plaintiff’s allegations do not identify any actions taken by any defendant that could 27 28 1 On November 13 and 20, 2023, plaintiff filed a notice and declaration. ECF Nos. 3 & 4. The court has reviewed both filings and finds that neither cure the complaint’s deficiencies. 2 1 support a claim for relief. See Jones v. Cmty. Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984) 2 (“The plaintiff must allege with at least some degree of particularity overt acts which defendants 3 engaged in that support the plaintiff’s claim.”). 4 The operative complaint should be dismissed for failure to state a claim. Given the 5 complaint’s allegations, I find that granting plaintiff an opportunity to amend would not cure the 6 complaint’s deficiencies, and so I recommend that dismissal be without leave to amend.2 See 7 Schucker v. Rockwood, 846 F.2d 1202, 1203-04 (9th Cir. 1988) (per curiam) (“Dismissal of a pro 8 se complaint without leave to amend is proper only if it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of 9 the complaint could not be cured by amendment.”) (internal quotation marks and citations 10 11 12 omitted). Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiff’s request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, is granted. 13 Furthermore, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that: 14 1. Plaintiff’s complaint, ECF No. 1, be dismissed without leave to amend. 15 2. The Clerk of Court be directed to close this matter. 16 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 17 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 18 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 19 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 20 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 21 objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 22 parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 Plaintiff has filed other complaints resembling in some ways the instant complaint, and none have survived screening. See Chiu v. Trump, 2:22-cv-00764-KJM-AC (PS) (E.D. Cal May 11, 2022) (plaintiff’s complaint dismissed without leave to amend and with prejudice); Chiu v. President of the United States, 2:22-cv-00809-TLN-DB (PS) (E.D. Cal Oct. 24, 2022) (plaintiff’s complaint dismissed without leave to amend); Chiu v. Extra Storage Space, 2:23-cv-00099-KJMAC (PS) (E.D. Cal Jan. 23, 2023) (plaintiff’s complaint dismissed without leave to amend); Chiu v. President of U.S., 2:23-cv-00098-KJM-JDP (PS) (E.D. Cal July 11, 2023) (plaintiff’s complaint dismissed without leave to amend). 3 1 appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez 2 v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 Dated: December 11, 2023 6 JEREMY D. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4

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.