1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ROXANNE ATKA ARI, Case No. 22-cv-02515-JD

8 Plaintiff, ORDER RE DISMISSAL v. 9 Re: Dkt. Nos. 3, 4 10 MONA HOUSTON, et al., Defendants. 11

12 13 Plaintiff, a state prisoner, has filed a pro se civil rights complaint under

. 14 She has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 15 DISCUSSION 16 STANDARD OF REVIEW 17 Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek 18 redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. 19 § 1915A(a). In its review, the Court must identify any cognizable claims, and dismiss any claims 20 which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek 21 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. at 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se 22 pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t,

(9th 23 Cir. 1990). 24 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement of the 25 claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Although a complaint “does not need detailed 26 factual allegations, . . . a plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to 27 relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a 1 the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,

(2007) (citations 2 || omitted). A complaint must proffer “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 3 face.”

. The United States Supreme Court has explained the “plausible on its face” 4 || standard of Twombly: “While legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they 5 must be supported by factual allegations. When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court 6 should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement 7 to relief.” Ashcroft v. Igbal,

(2009). 8 To state a claim under

, a plaintiff must allege that: (1) a right secured by 9 the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) the alleged deprivation was 10 || committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins,

(1988). 11 LEGAL CLAIMS 12 Plaintiff's allegations are difficult to discern. She states that people stole her property 13 through forgery in 1973, she was illegally prosecuted and imprisoned, she has been forcibly 14 || medicated and that there is an illegal conspiracy to overthrow the government. Plaintiff’s 3 15 allegations are frivolous and fail to state a claim. Because no amount of amendment would cure a 16 the deficiencies of the complaint, this action is dismissed without leave to amend. If plaintiff 3 17 seeks to raise claims regarding the medical care or other treatment at her prison, she should file a S 18 || case in the Central District of California where she is incarcerated. 19 CONCLUSION 20 1. This action is DISMISSED without leave to amend for failure to state a claim and as 21 frivolous. Plaintiff's motions (Dkt. Nos 3, 4) are DENIED. 22 2. The Clerk is requested to close this case. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 Dated: May 10, 2022 25 26 JAMES ATO 27 United Sates District Judge 28