1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOHN PETER ARCHER, No. 2:23-cv-01513 DB P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND 14 STEVEN MNUCHIN, et al., FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 15 Defendants. 16

17 18 Plaintiff, John Peter Archer, proceeds without counsel on a civil complaint for damages. 19 This matter was referred to the undersigned by Local Rule 302. See

(b)(1). 20 Plaintiff’s complaint is before the court for screening. (ECF No. 1.) The complaint’s allegations 21 do not state a claim. Because it clearly appears leave to amend would be futile, the complaint 22 should be dismissed without leave to amend. 23 I. In Forma Pauperis 24 Plaintiff seeks to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 6) “A district court may deny leave 25 to proceed in forma pauperis at the outset if it appears from the face of the proposed complaint 26 that the action is frivolous or without merit.” Tripati v. First Nat’l Bank & Tr.,

, 27 1370 (9th Cir. 1987). For the reasons set forth below, the undersigned recommends plaintiff’s 28 application to proceed in forma pauperis be denied. 1 II. Screening Requirement 2 Pursuant to

(e), the court must screen every in forma pauperis 3 proceeding, and mut order dismissal of the case if it is “frivolous or malicious,” “fails to state a 4 claim on which relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is 5 immune from such relief.”

(e)(2)(B); Lopez v. Smith,

, 1126-27 6 (2000). A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 7 Neitzke v. Williams,

(1989); Franklin v. Murphy,

(9th 8 Cir. 1984). The court may dismiss a claim as frivolous if it is based on an indisputably meritless 9 legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke,

. 10 Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires a short and plain statement 11 of the claim that shows the pleader is entitled to relief. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,

(2007). In order to state a cognizable claim, a complaint must contain more than “a 13 formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action;” it must contain factual allegations 14 sufficient “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.”

. The facts 15 alleged must “‘give the defendant fair notice of what the... claim is and the grounds upon which it 16 rests.’” Erickson v. Pardus,

(2007) (quoting Twombly,

). In 17 reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court accepts as true the non-conclusory 18 allegations of the complaint and construes the pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. 19 See id.; Scheuer v. Rhodes,

(1974). 20 III. Plaintiff’s Allegations 21 From January 1, 2020, through December 31, 2020, a series of “copyright, under written, 22 presentments” were sent to Steven Mnuchin, whom plaintiff alleges was the Director of the 23 “California Treasury.”1 (ECF No. 1 at 2.) “These presentment[s] to payment or U.S. Civil Court 24 Suit [under] 15 USCS 15, will be pursued.” (Id.) And further, “With/By, (X7) copyright notices, 25 letters, to fault-cure and remedy.” (Id.) The director did not reply to plaintiff’s communications. 26 (Id.) After 30 days of non-response, “no returns, by demand and request, did all private copyright 27 1 In quoting allegations from plaintiff’s complaint, some punctuation and capitalization is 28 omitted. 1 property and under written copyright works become stolen property.” (Id.) The defendants are 2 Steven Mnuchin, two other individuals alleged to be affiliated with the “California Treasury,” and 3 “all other treasurers.” (Id. at 2.) Through this suit, plaintiff seeks damages for the alleged theft of 4 his copyright works and presentments. (Id. at 3.) 5 IV. Discussion 6 The complaint states plaintiff’s claim is brought under

, the Clayton Act. 7 The Clayton Act authorizes a private individual to bring suit under the antitrust laws if that 8 individual has been “injured in his business or property by reason of anything forbidden in the 9 antitrust laws.”

. Specifically, it creates private right of action to enforce the 10 Sherman Act,

. See Knevelbaard Dairies v. Kraft Foods, Inc.,

, 987 11 (9th Cir. 2000) (citing

). The two sections of the Sherman Act, in turn, seek to 12 prevent anticompetitive practices in commerce.

; see also NYNEX Corp. v. 13 Discon, Inc.,

(1998); Somers v. Apple, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 2013). 14 As an initial matter, the complaint does not comply with Rules 8 and 12 of the Federal 15 Rules of Civil Procedure because the complaint does not set forth a short and plain statement of 16 the purported grounds for relief against each defendant. “Although a pro se litigant like [plaintiff] 17 may be entitled to great leeway when the court construes his pleadings, those pleadings 18 nonetheless must meet some minimum threshold in providing a defendant with notice of what it is 19 that it allegedly did wrong.” Brazil v. U.S. Dep’t of Navy,

, 199 (9th Cir. 1995). 20 Moreover, the complaint’s allegations are incomprehensible. The complaint does not present 21 plausible factual allegations establishing any claim or legally coherent theories of liability. The 22 complaint should be dismissed on this basis. See Denton v. Hernandez,

, 32-33 23 (1992); see also Neitzke v. Williams,

(1989). 24 If it is clear a complaint cannot be cured by amendment, the court may dismiss without 25 leave to amend. Cato v. United States,

(9th Cir. 1995); see also Lopez v.

F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). In this instance, plaintiff makes no 27 allegations that would support a claim under the Clayton Act. Based on the complaint’s 28 incomprehensible allegations, it clearly appears leave to amend would be futile. 1 V. Order and Recommendation 2 In accordance with the above, IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall assign a 3 | district judge to this case. 4 In addition, IT IS RECOMMENDED as follows: 5 1. Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 6) be DENIED. 6 2. The complaint be dismissed without leave to amend for failure to state a claim. 7 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 8 | assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of

(b)(1). Within twenty-one days 9 | after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 10 | with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judges Findings 11 | and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified 12 || time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. YIst,

(9th 13 } Cir. 1991). 14 | Dated: March 4, 2024

16 U7 ORAH BARNES DLB7 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 18 || arch1513.scrn-fr 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28