1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ELIJAH SMITH, Case No. EDCV 20-2373 MCS (RAO) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 14 PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF RE SUMMARY DISMISSAL CALIFORNIA, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 On November 10, 2020, Plaintiff Elijah Smith (“Plaintiff”), a detainee 18 proceeding pro se, filed a civil complaint (“Complaint”). Compl., Dkt. No. 1. 19 Plaintiff did not pay the filing fee or file a request to proceed in forma pauperis. See 20 Dkt. No. 2. For the following reasons, the Complaint is dismissed without leave to 21 amend. 22 Plaintiff brings this lawsuit against “Mr. Tucker,” “Sheriff Deputy of Los 23 Angeles,” the People of the State of California, and the Safety Branch of El Segundo. 24 Compl. at 3-4. He sues the defendants for “$190, zillion dollars.” Id. at 6. Plaintiff 25 states that the defendants violated his rights at “North Hollywood Mental Health 26 Attorney & Sheriff Department of Los Angeles.” Id. at 2. Defendant Tucker violated 27 his rights “in fault me doing an[] arson,” and Defendant Sheriff Deputy violated his 28 1 rights in using “it’s [sic] exhibits” and “arson done” “never happen.” Id. at 3. 2 Defendant People violated Plaintiff’s rights by using an attorney and court reporter 3 to falsely imprison him and “going against” him. Id. Finally, Defendant Safety 4 Branch of El Segundo failed to do its job “by sending [Plaintiff] over to a 5 psychiatrist” to have medical forms completed “so the truck driving license” could 6 be cleared. Id. at 4. In addition to monetary damages, the Complaint requests that 7 Plaintiff’s Class C license be cleared to allow Plaintiff to “drive a truck for Swift 8 Trans Truck Driving Company.” Id. at 6. 9 Plaintiff’s allegations are difficult to decipher, and he provides no discernible 10 legal basis for his Complaint. The Court construes the Complaint as being brought 11 pursuant to

(“Section 1983”). Section 1983 provides, in part, 12 that: 13 Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, 14 regulation, custom, or usage, of any State …, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or 15 other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the 16 deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party 17 injured in an action at law[.] 18

. 19 Plaintiff fails to allege a cognizable Section 1983 claim. To the extent 20 Plaintiff is complaining of the conduct of defendant Tucker, the Sheriff’s 21 Department and the Safety Branch of El Segundo, Plaintiff provides no facts to 22 support a Section 1983 claim against any defendant. To the extent Plaintiff is 23 complaining of the conduct of a state attorney, the individual would be entitled to 24 prosecutorial immunity for activities “intimately associated with the judicial phase 25 of the criminal process,” Imbler v. Pachtman,

,

, 47

(1976), which includes appearances at hearings. See Burns v. Reed, 27 /// 28 1 ||

,

,

(1991) (applying 2 || prosecutorial immunity to pretrial court appearances in criminal proceedings). 3 Because the Court is persuaded that Plaintiff would be unable to allege any 4 || facts based upon the circumstances he challenges that would state a cognizable 5 || claim, amendment would be futile in this case. See Hartmann v. Cal. Dep’t of 6 || Corr. & Rehab.,

(9th Cir. 2013) (“A district court may deny 7 || leave to amend when amendment would be futile.”). Additionally, dismissal is 8 || appropriate to the extent the Court is unable to decipher facts and claims in the 9 || Complaint. See Ingram v. City of Sacramento,

(9th Cir. 2014) 10 || (finding district court properly dismissed action “as frivolous because the complaint 11 || contains indecipherable facts and unsupported legal assertions”). 12 Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED THAT the Complaint is 13 || DISMISSED. 14 15 || DATED: December 21, 2020 / £ Cenbn’ □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28