1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RAJ SINGH, No. 2:25-cv-2402-DAD-CKD PS 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 JONATHAN HOBBS, et al., FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 15 Defendants. 16

17 18 Plaintiff Raj Singh initiated this action on August 22, 2025, with a pro se complaint and a 19 motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). (ECF Nos. 1, 2.) This matter is referred to the 20 undersigned magistrate judge pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21) and

(b)(1). For 21 the reasons that follow, the undersigned recommends plaintiff’s application to proceed IFP be 22 denied and the complaint be dismissed without leave to amend. 23 I. IFP 24 In order to commence a civil action, a plaintiff must either pay the $350.00 filing fee and 25 the $55.00 administrative fee or file an application requesting leave to proceed IFP. See 28 U.S.C. 26 §§ 1914(a), 1915(a). The court may authorize the commencement of an action without 27 prepayment of fees by an individual who submits an affidavit evidencing an inability to pay such 28 fees.

(a). 1 Plaintiff’s affidavit in support of the request to proceed in forma pauperis is incomplete. 2 Plaintiff left blank multiple sections of the form, including the section requiring plaintiff to 3 declare income other than gross pay or wages. (ECF No. 2 at 1.) Because the affidavit is 4 incomplete, it fails to establish plaintiff is entitled to prosecute this case without paying the 5 required fees. See United States v. McQuade,

(9th Cir. 1981) (The affidavit 6 must “state the facts as to affiant’s poverty with some particularity, definiteness and certainty.”) 7 In the alternative, plaintiff’s IFP application may be denied because this action is frivolous and 8 without merit. See Minetti v. Port of Seattle,

, 1115 (9th Cir. 1998) (“‘A district 9 court may deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis at the outset if it appears from the face of the 10 proposed complaint that the action is frivolous or without merit.’”) (quoting Tripati v. First Nat. 11 Bank & Tr.,

(9th Cir. 1987)). 12 II.

(e) Screening 13 Pursuant to

(e), the court must screen every in forma pauperis 14 proceeding, and must order dismissal of the case if it is “frivolous or malicious,” “fails to state a 15 claim on which relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is 16 immune from such relief.”

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

, 1126-27 17 (2000) (en banc). Plaintiff’s complaint should be dismissed because it merely repeats 18 unsuccessful claims plaintiff has already litigated. 19 The named defendants are Jonathan Hobbs—Attorney for City of Elk Grove, Suzanne 20 Kennedy—Attorney for City of Elk Grove, Gerard F. Keena, Detective Chilmer, and the City of 21 Elk Grove. (ECF No. 1 at 2-3.) Plaintiff allegations are vague and appear to state the defendants 22 illegally seized his properties while he was behind bars based on false police reports and that 23 these defendants conspired to convict him illegally and falsely based on “non-crime.” (ECF No. 1 24 at 3-5.) 25 The allegations are far too vague to establish the court’s subject matter jurisdiction or state 26 a claim upon which relief can be granted. Moreover, this is not the first action plaintiff has filed 27 in this court alleging defendants Hobbs, Kennedy, Keena, and City of Elk Grove violated his 28 rights in connection with an alleged deprivation of property that occurred while plaintiff was 1 detained or serving time on a criminal case. See Singh v. City of Elk Grove, No. 2:24-CV-2456 2 DC AC PS,

, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2024), report and recommendation 3 adopted, No. 2:24-CV-02456-DC-AC (PS),

(E.D. Cal. Aug. 18, 2025) 4 (“Plaintiff brings suit against the City of Elk Grove, City Attorneys Jonathan Hobbs and Suzanne 5 Kennedy, and Receiver Gerard F. Keena [and] alleges that he was convicted in 2020 ‘for a non- 6 crime, rare, false and fabricated charges based on false and fabricated testimonies only.’ [….] As 7 a result of this false testimony, plaintiff spent 12 years in prison, during which time plaintiff's 8 property was taken by the receiver who conspired with the City Attorneys.”) 9 Plaintiff’s addition of Detective Chilmer as a defendant to the present case does not assist 10 plaintiff to establish the court’s subject matter jurisdiction or state a claim upon which relief can 11 be granted, particularly where the present complaint contains no specific factual allegations 12 regarding Detective Chilmer’s conduct. Thus, plaintiff was already informed that his allegations 13 presented in the present complaint fail to state a claim. See Singh v. City of Elk Grove,

4729340, at *1. Despite being so informed, plaintiff has repeated substantially the same 15 allegations in this newly filed case. This action is frivolous within the meaning of

1915(e) and should be dismissed as such. See Cato v. United States,

, 1105 n.2 (9th 17 Cir. 1995) (holding that a complaint that “merely repeats pending or previously litigated claims” 18 may be dismissed as frivolous under the authority of

). Leave to amend should 19 not be granted. See Lopez v. Smith,

, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000) (“[D]istrict courts are 20 only required to grant leave to amend if a complaint can possibly be saved. Courts are not 21 required to grant leave to amend if a complaint lacks merit entirely.”). 22 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED as follows: 23 1. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) be denied. 24 2. Plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed without leave to amend for failure to state a claim. 25 3. The Clerk of Court be directed to close this case. 26 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 27 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of

(b)(l). Within 14 days after 28 being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with 1 | the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to 2 || Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections within the 3 || specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst,

| 1153 (th Cir. 1991). 5 || Dated: September 24, 2025 Card Kt | (£4 (g—

7 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 8, singh2sev2402.sem.ti 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28