1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANTHONY R. TURNER, No. 2:24-cv-2803 DC AC P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 YOLO COUNTY MAYOR, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a county prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a complaint for relief under 18 various state and federal statutes. 19 I. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints 20 The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners1 seeking relief against “a 21 governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). 22 The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are 23 “frivolous, malicious, or fail[] to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,” or that “seek[] 24 1 Although plaintiff was in the custody at the Napa State Hospital when he filed the complaint, 25 attachments to the complaint allege that he was being held there on a “falsified Sell order” (ECF 26 No. 1 at 28-35), which appears to be a reference to Sell v. United States,

(2003). Sell addressed the government’s ability to involuntarily medicate a criminal defendant in order to 27 render him competent to stand trial. Plaintiff’s indication that he was subject to a Sell order and subsequent address change showing he was transferred to a county jail facility (ECF No. 5), 28 indicate that he was a pretrial detainee at the time of filing. 1 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). 2 A claim “is [legally] frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” 3 Neitzke v. Williams,

(1989); Franklin v. Murphy,

(9th 4 Cir. 1984). “[A] judge may dismiss . . . claims which are ‘based on indisputably meritless legal 5 theories’ or whose ‘factual contentions are clearly baseless.’” Jackson v. Arizona,

, 6 640 (9th Cir. 1989) (quoting Neitzke,

), superseded by statute on other grounds as 7 stated in Lopez v. Smith,

, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000). The critical inquiry is whether a 8 constitutional claim, however inartfully pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. 9 Franklin,

(citations omitted). 10 “Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only ‘a short and plain statement of the 11 claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,’ in order to ‘give the defendant fair notice of 12 what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550

, 555 (2007) (alteration in original) (quoting Conley v. Gibson,

(1957)). 14 “Failure to state a claim under § 1915A incorporates the familiar standard applied in the context 15 of failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).” Wilhelm v. Rotman, 16

(9th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted). In order to survive dismissal for failure 17 to state a claim, a complaint must contain more than “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a 18 cause of action;” it must contain factual allegations sufficient “to raise a right to relief above the 19 speculative level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citations omitted). “[T]he pleading must contain 20 something more . . . than . . . a statement of facts that merely creates a suspicion [of] a legally 21 cognizable right of action.” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting 5 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur 22 R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1216 (3d ed. 2004)). 23 “[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to 24 relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

(2009) (quoting 25 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual 26 content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 27 misconduct alleged.” Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). In reviewing a complaint under this 28 standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in question, Hosp. Bldg. 1 Co. v. Trs. of the Rex Hosp.,

(1976) (citation omitted), as well as construe the 2 pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor, 3 Jenkins v. McKeithen,

(1969) (citations omitted). 4 II. Complaint 5 Plaintiff alleges that Jessie Salinas and Kristina Hunt, both employees at the Yolo County 6 Clerk-Recorder’s Office, along with the Yolo County mayor and numerous Doe defendants from 7 various Yolo County agencies, conspired to and did illegally wiretap and murder his parent, 8 grandparent, aunts, and uncles and then forged estate documents and refused to provide them to 9 plaintiff in an effort deprive him of property he inherited from those family members. ECF No. 10 1. Plaintiff alleges that between 1961 and 2015, his family members were subject to illegal 11 wiretaps and drone surveillance and when their homes were burglarized to place the illegal 12 wiretaps defendants also left poisonous spiders and snakes in order to cause their deaths.

at 13 11, 15-16. The coroner and sheriff’s offices then covered up the murders and the clerk-recorder’s 14 office forged various estate documents in order to steal the property that had been left to plaintiff. 15 Id. at 3-7, 13, 16, 18. Plaintiff knows that the documents have been forged or altered because he 16 saw his family members execute documents naming him as the sole successor while they were 17 alive. Id. at 17. On September 20, 2024, petitioner sent a request to Hunt and Salinas requesting 18 all records showing they had left various properties to plaintiff but his access to these documents 19 has been obstructed. Id. at 18-20. Attached to the complaint is a letter from Hunt on Yolo 20 County Clerk-Recorder’s Office letterhead stating that as a courtesy an indices search had been 21 conducted for the deeds plaintiff requested, but staFf were unable to find any that matched his 22 request and that the office does not file record wills, codicils, or trust documents. Id. at 27. The 23 letter further stated that it was recommended that plaintiff conduct his own search of the records. 24 Id. 25 The complaint fails to present plausible factual allegations or legally coherent theories of 26 liability establishing a claim for relief and the allegations contained therein are clearly fantastical. 27 “[A] court may dismiss a claim as factually frivolous only if the facts alleged are ‘clearly 28 baseless,’ a category encompassing allegations that are ‘fanciful,’ ‘fantastic,’ and ‘delusional.’ 1 As those words suggest, a finding of factual frivolousness is appropriate when the facts alleged 2 rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible.” Denton v. Hernandez,

, 32- 3 33 (1992) (internal citations omitted). The facts alleged by plaintiff are patently incredible, and 4 the complaint must therefore be dismissed. 5 III. No Leave to Amend 6 Leave to amend should be granted if it appears possible that the defects in the complaint 7 could be corrected, especially if a plaintiff is pro se. Lopez v. Smith,

, 1130-31 8 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). However, if, after careful consideration, it is clear that a complaint 9 cannot be cured by amendment, the court may dismiss without leave to amend. Cato v. United 10 States,

, 1105-06 (9th Cir. 1995). 11 The undersigned finds that, as set forth above, both the complaint fails to state a claim 12 upon which relief may be granted. The contents of the complaint are sufficiently fantastical that 13 it is clear that leave to amend would not result in a cognizable claim. As a result, leave to amend 14 would be futile and the complaint should be dismissed without leave to amend. 15 IV. Motions for Discovery 16 Plaintiff has filed several motions for discovery. ECF Nos. 6-8. In light of the 17 recommendation that this action be dismissed, the motions will be denied. 18 V. Plain Language Summary of this Order for a Pro Se Litigant 19 It is being recommended that your complaint be dismissed without leave to amend 20 because your allegations do not state any claims for relief and it does not appear the problems can 21 be fixed. 22 CONCLUSION 23 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the complaint be 24 dismissed without leave to amend for failure to state a claim. 25 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 26 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of

(b)(l). Within twenty-one days 27 after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 28 with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judges Findings 1 | and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified 2 | time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst,

3 | (9th Cir. 1991). 4 | DATED: October 1, 2025 “

ALLISON CLAIRE 6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28