1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL CHARLES SCHOOL, No. 2:24-cv-01070 DJC AC PS 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 KELLY BABINEAU, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was referred to the undersigned 18 by E.D. Cal. R. 302(c)(21). Plaintiff filed a request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis 19 (“IFP”) pursuant to

and has submitted the affidavit required by that statute. See 20

(a)(1). The motion to proceed IFP will therefore be granted. 21 I. Screening 22 A. Legal Standard 23 A determination that a plaintiff qualifies financially for in forma pauperis status does not 24 complete the inquiry required by the statute. The federal IFP statute requires federal courts to 25 dismiss a case if the action is legally “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which 26 relief may be granted or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 27

(e)(2). Plaintiff must assist the court in determining whether the complaint is 28 frivolous, by drafting the complaint so that it complies with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 1 (“Fed. R. Civ. P.”). Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the complaint must contain (1) a 2 “short and plain statement” of the basis for federal jurisdiction (that is, the reason the case is filed 3 in this court, rather than in a state court), (2) a short and plain statement showing that plaintiff is 4 entitled to relief (that is, who harmed the plaintiff, and in what way), and (3) a demand for the 5 relief sought. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Plaintiff’s claims must be set forth simply, concisely and 6 directly. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1). 7 A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 8 Neitzke v. Williams,

(1989). In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the 9 court will (1) accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in the complaint, unless they 10 are clearly baseless or fanciful, (2) construe those allegations in the light most favorable to the 11 plaintiff, and (3) resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor. See Neitzke,

; Von 12 Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art at Pasadena,

(9th Cir. 2010), cert. 13 denied,

(2011). 14 The court applies the same rules of construction in determining whether the complaint 15 states a claim on which relief can be granted. Erickson v. Pardus,

(2007) (court 16 must accept the allegations as true); Scheuer v. Rhodes,

(1974) (court must 17 construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff). Pro se pleadings are held to a 18 less stringent standard than those drafted by lawyers. Haines v. Kerner,

, 520 19 (1972). However, the court need not accept as true conclusory allegations, unreasonable 20 inferences, or unwarranted deductions of fact. Western Mining Council v. Watt,

, 21 624 (9th Cir. 1981). A formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action does not suffice 22 to state a claim. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,

(2007); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 23

(2009). To state a claim on which relief may be granted, the plaintiff must 24 allege enough facts “to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly,

570. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the 26 court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” 27 Iqbal,

. 28 //// 1 A pro se litigant is entitled to notice of the deficiencies in the complaint and an 2 opportunity to amend, unless the complaint’s deficiencies could not be cured by amendment. See 3 Noll v. Carlson,

(9th Cir. 1987), superseded on other grounds by statute as 4 stated in Lopez v. Smith,

(9th Cir. 2000)) (en banc). 5 B. The Complaint 6 Plaintiff’s 104-page complaint alleges violations of “18 U.S.C. §1346 Honest Services 7 Fraud[,] Equal Protection[, and] 5 U.S.C 7311 5 U.S.C. 5560 Proof of Jurisdiction” against a 8 Nevada County judge, the Nevada County district attorney, and two Nevada County assistant 9 district attorneys. ECF No. 1 at 3-4. Plaintiff alleges “All defendants are operating through 10 Emergency order 100 enforcing a suspended constitution for personal gain.” Id. at 5. Under 11 “Statement of the Claim” plaintiff alleges “The events took place on the soil of Nevada County 12 but not within the UNITED STATES.” Id. at 8. Plaintiff indicates he was accused of trespassing 13 and filing a fake deed into public records and that he was denied a trial by jury, but also writes, 14 that a “Clerk Recorder was not available to testify at the fake jury trial.” Id. 15 Plaintiff writes “I require the court to prosecute the defendants as unregistered Foreign 16 Agents who violated their Oaths of Office and have vacated their offices by their fraudulent 17 actions in violation of the Supreme Laws of the land and award money damages in the amount of 18 $25,001,000.00 (Twenty Five Million One Thousand Dollars) The basis of this Claim for 19 damages is based on the Unrebutted Administrative Default Process served on the defendants and 20 also entered in to the lower court case.” Id. at 9. Pages 11-104 of the complaint are photocopies 21 of various documents that do not appear to have any legal relevance. One document, for 22 example, is entitled “For the Claimant-Knowledge of this Live-Life is with this claim by this 23 Claimant” and contains a photo of plaintiff, a fingerprint, and what appears to be a photocopy of a 24 strand of hair. Id. at 62. Plaintiff signed his complaint with, in addition to his hand-written name, 25 a red thumbprint. Id. at 7. 26 C. Analysis 27 The complaint does not contain facts supporting any cognizable legal claim against any 28 defendant. The court finds that the complaint consists entirely of fanciful and delusional 1 | allegations with no basis on law and no plausible supporting facts. See ECF No. 1. The contents 2 || of the complaint are sufficiently unintelligible as to make it clear that leave to amend in this case 3 || would not be fruitful. The undersigned will therefore recommend that the complaint be dismissed 4 | with prejudice. 5 Il. Pro Se Plaintiff’s Summary 6 Your motions to proceed without paying the filing fees are being granted, and you do not 7 || have to pay the filing fee. However, the Magistrate Judge has determined that your complaint 8 || cannot be served because it does not state any legal claim that the court can help with. The 9 || Magistrate Judge is recommending that your case be dismissed. You have 21 days to file an 10 || objection to this recommendation. 11 Il. Conclusion 12 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's application to 13 || proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is GRANTED. 14 Further, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that all claims against all defendants should 15 || be DISMISSED with prejudice. 16 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 17 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of

(b)(1).. Within twenty-one days 18 | after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 19 || with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings 20 || and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified 21 | time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst,

22 | (9th Cir. 1991). 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 | DATED: June 28, 2024 A /

25 ALLISON CLAIRE 26 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 27 28