1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 San Francisco Division 11 ABRAHAM PORTNOV, Case No. 21-cv-00067-LB

12 Plaintiff, ORDER SCREENING COMPLAINT 13 v. WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

14 THE UNITED STATES, Re: ECF No. 1 15 Defendant. 16 17 INTRODUCTION 18 The plaintiff Abraham Portnov, who represents himself in this action and who is proceeding in 19 forma pauperis, sued the United States for an unidentified claim relating to his unsuccessful prior 20 lawsuits in various federal district courts.1 Before directing the United States Marshal to serve the 21 defendant with the complaint, the court must screen it for minimal legal viability.

1915(e)(2)(B). The plaintiff has not plausibly pleaded a federal claim. The court gives the plaintiff 23 leave to amend the complaint by February 1, 2021. 24 25 26 27 1 Compl. – ECF No. 1; Order – ECF No. 5. Citations refer to material in the Electronic Case File 1 STATEMENT 2 Even construed liberally, the plaintiff’s complaint is difficult to understand. He alleges that he 3 has filed various lawsuits in the past six and a half years, and that U.S. federal employees, 4 including judges, clerks, and the Department of Justice, violated laws in handling his cases.2 He 5 has sued the United States for violations of his constitutional rights and other federal claims in this 6 district and the Western District of Washington.3 Courts have dismissed the plaintiff’s claims on 7 the basis of judicial immunity and sovereign immunity.4 The plaintiff also contacted U.S. Senator 8 Dianne Feinstein’s office for assistance. He alleges that Senator Feinstein’s office did not call him 9 back or return the documents he submitted.5 10 ANALYSIS 11 1. Sua Sponte Screening –

(e)(2) 12 A complaint filed by any person proceeding in forma pauperis under

(a) is 13 subject to a mandatory and sua sponte review and dismissal by the court to the extent that it is 14 frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary 15 relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.

(e)(2)(B); Calhoun v. 16 Stahl,

(9th Cir. 2001); Lopez v. Smith,

(9th Cir. 2000) 17 (en banc). Section 1915(e)(2) mandates that the court reviewing an in forma pauperis complaint 18 make and rule on its own motion to dismiss before directing the United States Marshals to serve 19 the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(c)(2). Lopez,

. The Ninth 20 Circuit has noted that “[t]he language of § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) parallels the language of Federal Rule 21 of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).” Barren v. Harrington,

(9th Cir. 1998). As the 22 23 2 Compl. – ECF No. 1 at 2–3. 3

24 4 Portnov v. Grewal, No. 16-cv-05598-BLF, Order – ECF No. 10 at 2–5 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2016) (dismissing claim against Judge Grewal on the ground of judicial immunity); Portnov v. United States, 25 C 16-00310-RSL, Order – ECF No. 11 at 1–2 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 14, 2016) (dismissing claim against the United States on the ground of sovereign immunity and against Judge Grewal on the ground of 26 judicial immunity); Portnov v. United States, C 16-1519-RSM , Order – ECF No. 9 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 18, 2016) (same), aff’d, Portnov v. United States, No. 16-35940 (9th Cir. Mar. 13, 2017) (appeal was 27 frivolous). 1 Supreme Court has explained, “[the in forma pauperis statute] is designed largely to discourage 2 the filing of, and waste of judicial and private resources upon, baseless lawsuits that paying 3 litigants generally do not initiate because of the costs of bringing suit.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490

, 327 (1989). 5 Under Rule 12(b)(6) and

(e)(2)(B), a district court must dismiss a complaint 6 if it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Rule 8(a)(2) requires that a complaint 7 include a “short and plain statement” showing the plaintiff is entitled to relief. “To survive a 8 motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a 9 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

(2009) (internal 10 quotation marks omitted); see Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,

(2007). The 11 complaint need not contain “detailed factual allegations,” but the plaintiff must “provide the 12 grounds of his entitlement to relief,” which “requires more than labels and conclusions”; a mere 13 “formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action” is insufficient. Twombly,

555 (cleaned up). 15 In determining whether to dismiss a complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), the court is ordinarily 16 limited to the face of the complaint. Van Buskirk v. Cable News Network, Inc.,

, 980 17 (9th Cir. 2002). Factual allegations in the complaint must be taken as true and reasonable 18 inferences drawn from them must be construed in favor of the plaintiff. Cahill v. Liberty Mut. Ins. 19 Co.,

, 337–38 (9th Cir. 1996). The court cannot assume, however, that “the [plaintiff] 20 can prove facts that [he or she] has not alleged.” Assoc. Gen. Contractors of Cal., Inc. v. Cal. State 21 Council of Carpenters,

(1983). “Nor is the court required to accept as true 22 allegations that are merely conclusory, unwarranted deductions of fact, or unreasonable 23 inferences.” Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors,

(9th Cir. 2001). 24 Federal courts must construe pro se complaints liberally. Hughes v. Rowe,

, 9 25 (1980); Hearns v. Terhune,

(9th Cir. 2005). A pro se plaintiff need only 26 provide defendants with fair notice of his claims and the grounds upon which they rest. Hearns, 27

. He need not plead specific legal theories so long as sufficient factual averments 1 When dismissing a case for failure to state a claim, the Ninth Circuit has “repeatedly held that 2 a district court should grant leave to amend even if no request to amend the pleading was made, 3 unless it determines that the pleading could not possibly be cured by the allegation of other facts.” 4 || Lopez,

Gnternal quotations omitted). 5 2. The Complaint Fails to State a Claim 6 The complaint does not state a legally cognizable claim or facts that may support one. 7 The plaintiff does not identify the legal basis for his claim. Under the “law or right violated” 8 section, he says only that “I am pro se and don’t want to make mistake of law name.” He does not 9 allege any specific claim or supporting factual allegations. This is insufficient. Tannenbaum v. 10 Cal. Dep’t of Corrs. & Rehab., C 18-6770 WHA (PR),

, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 4, 11 2019) (Although “specific facts are not necessary,” the pleading must “give the defendant fair 12 || notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests’’) (cleaned up). 13 In any amended complaint, the plaintiff must identify each claim and state the specific facts 14 and actors that relate to each claim. The court reminds the plaintiff of the previous court’s orders 15 regarding judicial immunity and sovereign immunity, and it attaches those orders. 16 CONCLUSION 5 17 The court has identified the complaint’s deficiencies. The plaintiff may file an amended 3 18 complaint by February 1, 2021 if he can cure the deficiencies. If the plaintiff does not file an 19 amended complaint, the court will reassign the case to a district judge and recommend that the newly 20 assigned judge dismiss the case. Alternatively, the plaintiff may also voluntarily dismiss this case 21 by filing a one-page notice of voluntary dismissal, which will operate as a dismissal without 22 || prejudice and allow him to pursue his claims later. 23 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. LA 25 Dated: January 11, 2021 LAUREL BEELER 26 United States Magistrate Judge 27 28 || ©

.