1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 EVELYN JIMENEZ, Case No. 1:25-cv-00950-SKO 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION THAT PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT BE 13 v. DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND 14 POSTAL SERVICE OFFICE, (Doc. 1) 15 Defendant. TWENTY-ONE DAY DEADLINE 16 Clerk to Assign District Judge 17 18 Plaintiff Evelyn Jimenez is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this action. Plaintiff 19 filed a complaint on August 4, 2025. (Doc. 1). Upon review, the undersigned concludes that the 20 allegations are frivolous and fail to state a claim and recommends dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint 21 without leave to amend. 22 I. SCREENING REQUIREMENT 23 In cases where the plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court is required to screen 24 each case and shall dismiss the case at any time if the Court determines that the allegation of poverty 25 is untrue, or that the action or appeal is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which 26 relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 27

(e)(2). See Calhoun v. Stahl,

(9th Cir. 2001) (dismissal required of 28 in forma pauperis proceedings which seek monetary relief from immune defendants); Cato v. 1 United States,

, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995) (district court has discretion to dismiss in forma 2 pauperis complaint under

(e)); Barren v. Harrington,

(9th Cir. 3 1998) (affirming sua sponte dismissal for failure to state a claim). If the Court determines that a 4 complaint fails to state a claim, leave to amend may be granted to the extent that the deficiencies 5 of the complaint can be cured by amendment. Lopez v. Smith,

, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000) 6 (en banc). 7 In determining whether a complaint fails to state a claim, the Court uses the same pleading 8 standard used under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). A complaint must contain “a short and 9 plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 10 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of 11 a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556

, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,

(2007)). A 13 complaint may be dismissed as a matter of law for failure to state a claim for two reasons: (1) lack 14 of a cognizable legal theory; or (2) insufficient facts under a cognizable legal theory. See Balistreri 15 v. Pacifica Police Dep’t,

(9th Cir. 1990). Plaintiff must allege a minimum factual 16 and legal basis for each claim that is sufficient to give each defendant fair notice of what the 17 plaintiff’s claims are and the grounds upon which they rest. See, e.g., Brazil v. U.S. Dep’t of the 18 Navy,

, 199 (9th Cir. 1995); McKeever v. Block,

(9th Cir. 1991). 19 In reviewing the pro se complaint, the Court is to liberally construe the pleadings and accept 20 as true all factual allegations contained in the complaint. Erickson v. Pardus,

, 94 21 (2007). Although a court must accept as true all factual allegations contained in a complaint, a 22 court need not accept a plaintiff’s legal conclusions as true. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. “[A] complaint 23 [that] pleads facts that are ‘merely consistent with’ a defendant’s liability . . . ‘stops short of the 24 line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief.’” Id. (quoting Twombly,

). 26 II. SUMMARY OF PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT 27 Plaintiff drafted her complaint using the general complaint form provided by this Court. 28 Much of Plaintiff’s complaint is illegible. The caption of the complaint lists “Postal Service 1 Office.” (Doc. 1.) Plaintiff has filled out her name and states she is a citizen of California, and that 2 USPS is incorporated in the United States in the section labeled “If the Basis for Jurisdiction is 3 Diversity of Citizenship.” (Id. at 4–5.) In the section in which a plaintiff can indicate the “Amount 4 in Controversy.” Plaintiff has written “[t]he United Postal Office, expedites passports of letters with 5 clearly not my name, deliver correspondence.” (Id. at 5.) In the section in which she is asked to 6 state a “Statement of Claim,” Plaintiff has written “claim of names of others peoples 7 correspondence is not what I paid for in good faith being a ghost person outside the [illegible] P.O. 8 Box mail, did have me miss my daughter [illegible].” (Id.) 9 Plaintiff attached additional pages in which she continues her claim for relief as follows: 10 “Community hospital critical care, Fresno California, making me a mother without any care for 11 updating my mailing address, giving a no one home [illegible] controversy of missing [illegible] of 12 her nurturing parent mom per CPS of a ninty nine in percentile of getting the same like my eldest 13 daughter 10 7[illegible] years of us time, [illegible] underwear [illegible] of authority of location 14 of Maclera County.: (Id. at 7.) And as to her claim for relief, she states, “[illegible] mom, today as 15 of this time 10:06 AM mom cannot make contact service for always, gasoline in secure location in 16 [illegible] liquid of [illegible] energy.” (Id. at 6.) She also includes an additional page in which 17 she also requests “in amont of [illegible] cash California not one dollar note Bill Clinton [illegible] 18 11. billon dollars in gasoline one unit delivery.” (Id. at 8.) 19 The Civil Cover Sheet lists the nature of suit is listed as “Land Condemnation” and “Civil 20 Detainee – Conditions of Confinement.” (Doc. 1-1.) 21 III. DISCUSSION 22 For the reasons discussed below, the Court finds that the complaint does not state any 23 cognizable claims and is frivolous. 24 A. Rule 8 25 Rule 8 requires that a complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim 26 showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Plaintiff’s complaint 27 violates Rule 8 because it does not contain a short and plain statement of the claim demonstrating 28 that she is entitled to relief. 1 Although the Federal Rules use a flexible pleading policy, Plaintiff is required to give fair 2 notice to a defendant of the basis of the claim and must allege facts that support the elements of the 3 claim plainly and succinctly. A complaint must contain sufficient factual allegations to give the 4 defendant fair notice of the claim and the grounds upon which it rests. Twombly,

. 5 Here, there are no factual allegations in the complaint that identify the basis for any federal claim(s). 6 Nor does Plaintiff specify how her claim is one of land condemnation or civil – detainee conditions 7 of confinement as listed in the cover sheet. (See Doc. 1-1.) 8 In addition, a complaint is required to contain sufficient factual content for the court to draw 9 the reasonable conclusion that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Iqbal,

. Again, without any coherent factual allegations, it is impossible to determine what Plaintiff 11 is alleging has occurred or how the defendant is alleged to be responsible. 12 Finally, Rule 8 requires that the complaint must state a demand for the relief sought. Fed. 13 R. Civ. P. 8(a)(3). The nature of the relief requested in the complaint is wholly unclear to the Court. 14 (See Doc. 1 at 6.) 15 In sum, Plaintiff’s complaint fails to conform to the requirements of Rule 8. 16 B. Suit Against the United States and Federal Agencies 17 Plaintiff appears to attempt to bring this action against the United States Postal Service. 18 Generally, the United States and its agencies are entitled to sovereign immunity from suit unless 19 Congress has expressly waived immunity. F.D.I.C. v. Meyer,

(1994); Kaiser v. 20 Blue Cross of California,

, 1117 (9th Cir. 2003); Hodge v. Dalton,

, 707 21 (9th Cir. 1997). “Any waiver of immunity must be ‘unequivocally expressed,’ and any limitations 22 and conditions upon the waiver ‘must be strictly observed and exceptions thereto are not to be 23 implied.’” Hodge, 107 F.3d at 707 (quoting Lehman v. Nakshian,

(1981).) 24 The complaint is devoid of any allegations that would enable the Court to determine any basis by 25 which Plaintiff could bring suit against the United States Postal Service. 26 C. Frivolousness 27 Apart from Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim, her complaint is frivolous. A complaint will 28 be considered frivolous, and therefore subject to dismissal under § 1915(e)(2)(B), “where it lacks 1 an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Nietzke v. Williams,

(1989); see also 2 Denton v. Hernandez,

, 32–33 (1992) (“At the same time that it sought to lower judicial 3 access barriers to the indigent, however, Congress recognized that ‘a litigant whose filing fees and 4 court costs are assumed by the public, unlike a paying litigant, lacks an economic incentive to 5 refrain from filing frivolous, malicious, or repetitive lawsuits.’”). A federal court cannot properly 6 sua sponte dismiss an action commenced in forma pauperis if the facts alleged in the complaint are 7 merely “unlikely.” Denton,

. However, a complaint may be properly dismissed sua 8 sponte if the allegations are found to be “fanciful,” “fantastic,” or “delusional,” or if they “rise to 9 the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible.”

at 32–33. If a case is classified as frivolous, 10 “there is, by definition, no merit to the underlying action and so no reason to grant leave to amend.” 11 Lopez v. Smith,

, 1127 n. 8 (9th Cir. 2000). 12 Plaintiff’s complaint is frivolous under this legal standard. Plaintiff does not set forth any 13 facts. Her statement of claim and request for relief, as set forth above, are incoherent and fanciful. 14 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s complaint should be dismissed without leave to amend. See, e.g., Sameer 15 v. Khera, No. 1:17-cv-01748-DAD-EPG,

, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2018), appeal 16 dismissed as frivolous, No. 19-15011,

(9th Cir. Aug. 27, 2019) (dismissing the 17 case with prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction as “the only appropriate response” to 18 “fanciful allegations” in complaint that “alleges the existence of a vast conspiracy bent on plaintiff’s 19 destruction”); Ayres v. Obama, Civil No. 13–00371 SOM/RLP,

, at *2 (D. 20 Hawai’i Oct. 22, 2013) (allegations that FBI implanted biochips in plaintiff and her family to turn 21 them into “a living vegetable or a New World Order slave” were “so ‘fantastic’ and ‘fanciful’ as to 22 be clearly baseless”); Bivolarevic v. U.S. CIA, No. C 09-4620 SBA,

, at *1–2 23 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 8, 2010) (court lacked jurisdiction over claims that CIA subjected plaintiff to “voice 24 to skull technology” as a “mind control weapon”). 25 IV. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION 26 For the foregoing reasons, the undersigned recommends that Plaintiff’s complaint be 27 dismissed, without leave to amend. Although this is Plaintiff’s first complaint, it is clear from the 28 1 face of the complaint that it is frivolous.1 2 Accordingly, based on the foregoing, IT IS RECOMMENDED that: 3 1. Plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed, without leave to amend; and 4 2. The Clerk of the Court be instructed to close the case. 5 These findings and recommendation will be submitted to the United States district judge 6 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title

(b)(1). Within twenty-one 7 (21) days after being served with these findings and recommendation, Plaintiff may file written 8 objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 9 Findings and Recommendation.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the 10 specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler,

, 11 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan,

(9th Cir. 1991)). 12 Additionally, Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to assign a district judge to this case. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14

15 Dated: August 8, 2025 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 1 If Plaintiff believes that she can cure this deficiency in an amended complaint, she may file objections to these 28 Findings and Recommendation explaining how she would amend her complaint to state a cognizable claim.