1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 FROY DIAZ BRITO, No. 2:25-cv-1229 DC AC PS 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER and 14 NATO and DOD and DOJ, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was accordingly referred to the 18 undersigned by E.D. Cal. 302(c)(21). Plaintiff has filed a request for leave to proceed in forma 19 pauperis (“IFP”), and has submitted the affidavit required by that statute. See 28 U.S.C. 20 § 1915(a)(1). The motion to proceed IFP (ECF No. 2) will therefore be granted. 21 I. Screening 22 A. Standards 23 The federal IFP statute requires federal courts to dismiss a case if the action is legally 24 “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks 25 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.

(e)(2). A 26 claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. Neitzke v.

U.S. 319, 325 (1989). In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court will 28 (1) accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in the complaint, unless they are clearly 1 baseless or fanciful, (2) construe those allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and 2 (3) resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor. See Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327; Von Saher v. Norton 3 Simon Museum of Art at Pasadena,

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

1037 (2011). 5 The court applies the same rules of construction in determining whether the complaint 6 states a claim on which relief can be granted. Erickson v. Pardus,

(2007) (court 7 must accept the allegations as true); Scheuer v. Rhodes,

(1974) (court must 8 construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff). Pro se pleadings are held to a 9 less stringent standard than those drafted by lawyers. Haines v. Kerner,

, 520 10 (1972). However, the court need not accept as true conclusory allegations, unreasonable 11 inferences, or unwarranted deductions of fact. Western Mining Council v. Watt,

, 12 624 (9th Cir. 1981). A formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action does not suffice 13 to state a claim. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,

(2007); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 14

(2009). 15 To state a claim on which relief may be granted, the plaintiff must allege enough facts “to 16 state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly,

. “A claim has 17 facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the 18 reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal,

678. A pro se litigant is entitled to notice of the deficiencies in the complaint and an opportunity 20 to amend, unless the complaint’s deficiencies could not be cured by amendment. See Noll v. 21 Carlson,

, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987), superseded on other grounds by statute as stated in 22 Lopez v. Smith,

(9th Cir. 2000)) (en banc). 23 B. The Complaint 24 Plaintiff brings suit against the U.S. Marshals, the CIA, the Secret Service of California, 25 Baptist University, FEMA, and TSA.1 ECF No. 1 at 2-3. The factual basis for the complaint 26 reads in full: 27 1 The defendants named in the body of the complaint differ from those named in the caption of 28 the complaint, which are “NATO and DOD and DOJ.” ECF No. 1 at 1. 1 All Southern Sections of CA (OC, Riverside, San Bernadino) Sacramento & San Joaquin & Stanislaus County in 2025 2 between/within the month of April 2025 such case was made National in which I was trafficked to the white house with the 3 interpretation for or pertaining rewardship but instead I was pushed back to California. 4 5 Id. at 5. Plaintiff alleges violations of “13th Amendment, Chapter 77” and 18 U.S.C. 77, which 6 pertains to slavery and human trafficking. He seeks damages including travel reimbursement and 7 compensation for pain and suffering. Id. at 6. 8 C. Analysis 9 This complaint must be dismissed, for several reasons. First, the complaint does not 10 contain facts supporting any cognizable legal claim against any defendant. Plaintiff does not 11 identify how any of the defendants are connected to any alleged trafficking to or from the white 12 house. Second, the court finds that the complaint consists entirely of fanciful and delusional 13 allegations. The facts are insufficient to state any legal claim. Accordingly, it is apparent that 14 this case must be dismissed.2 15 II. Leave to Amend is Not Appropriate 16 Leave to amend is not appropriate in this case. Ordinarily, pro se litigants are granted 17 liberal leave to amend. “Valid reasons for denying leave to amend include undue delay, bad faith, 18 prejudice, and futility.” California Architectural Bldg. Prod. v. Franciscan Ceramics,

1466, 1472 (9th Cir. 1988). Here, given the defects described above, the undersigned finds that 20 leave to amend would be futile and should therefore not be granted. 21 III. Pro Se Plaintiff’s Summary 22 The Magistrate Judge is recommending that your case be dismissed because you do not 23 state a clear legal claim against any defendant. You may object to this recommendation within 21 24 days, if you wish to do so. 25 26 2 This case is one of four lawsuits in this district that plaintiff filed on the same day, April 29, 2025. See Brito v. Corona Police Department, 2:25-cv-1230-DJC-CSK; Brito v. Congress, 2:25- 27 cv-1231-DJC-CSK; and Brito v. TSA, 2:25-cv-1232-DAD-JDP. In one of these similar cases, Brito v. TSA, 25-cv-1232-DAD-JDP, Findings and Recommendations to dismiss the case as 28 frivolous are pending. 1 IV. Conclusion 2 Accordingly, plaintiffs request to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is GRANTED. 3 | Itis further RECOMMENDED that the complaint (ECF No. 1) be DISMISSED because it fails 4 || to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and that this case be closed. 5 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 6 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of

(b)(1). Within twenty one days 7 || after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 8 | with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Id.; see also Local Rule 304(b). Such a document 9 || should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure 10 || to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s 11 || order. Turner v. Duncan,

(9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. YIst,

, 12 | 1156-57 (9th Cir. 1991). 13 | DATED: July 25, 2025 ~

15 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28