1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 NICHOLAS GRAY, Case No. 2:25-cv-2645-JDP (P) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al., 15 Defendants. 16

17 18 Plaintiff, a county inmate, brings this section 1983 action against the Sacramento Police 19 Department and Officer Ratcliffe for violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. His claims are 20 adequate to proceed past screening. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 21 2, is denied as moot since plaintiff paid the filing fee. 22 Screening and Pleading Requirements 23 A federal court must screen a prisoner’s complaint that seeks relief against a governmental 24 entity, officer, or employee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must identify any cognizable 25 claims and dismiss any portion of the complaint that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a 26 claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is 27 immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b)(1), (2). 28 A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief, 1 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 2 face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,

(2007). The plausibility standard does not 3 require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

662, 678 (2009). If the allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere 5 possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not 6 identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr.,

, 7 1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that 8 give rise to an enforceable right to relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc.,

, 1264 9 n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (citations omitted). 10 The court must construe a pro se litigant’s complaint liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404

, 520 (1972) (per curiam). The court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s complaint “if it 12 appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which 13 would entitle him to relief.” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr.,

(9th Cir. 2017). 14 However, “‘a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements 15 of the claim that were not initially pled.’” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin.,

, 16 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents,

(9th Cir. 1982)). 17 Analysis 18 Plaintiff alleges that on March 31, 2022, defendant Ratcliffe illegally searched plaintiff’s 19 home. ECF No. 1 at 3. The search led to evidence used to arrest and incarcerate plaintiff.

20 Plaintiff later filed a motion to suppress the evidence, which Judge Nunley granted. Id. at 5-13. 21 Plaintiff claims that he spent eighteen months in jail and spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to 22 support his family and pay his legal fees. Id. at 3. For purposes of screening, plaintiff has 23 sufficiently alleged a Fourth Amendment claim against defendants. 24 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 25 1. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, is DENIED as moot. 26 2. Plaintiff may proceed with the claims deemed cognizable in this order. 27 3. The Clerk of Court shall issue summons for defendants. 28 4. Plaintiff is directed to serve all defendants within ninety days of this order’s entry. 1 5. Failure to do so may result in a recommendation that any unserved defendants be 2 | dismissed without prejudice for failure to timely effect services of process. 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: _ October 24, 2025 Q_——— 6 JEREMY D. PETERSON 7 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28