1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 GREGORY SCOTT VAN HUISEN, No. 2:23-cv-02900-DJC-EFB (PC) 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND 14 REHABILITATION, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in this action brought pursuant to 18

. Plaintiff has filed a Fifth Amended Complaint (ECF No. 23), which is before 19 the court for screening. 20 Screening Standards 21 Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek 22 redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. 23 § 1915A(a). The court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion 24 of the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which 25 relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 26 relief.” Id. § 1915A(b). 27 This standard is echoed in

(e)(2), which requires that courts dismiss a 28 case in which a plaintiff proceeds in forma pauperis at any time if it determines, among other 1 things, that the action “is frivolous or malicious,” “fails to state a claim on which relief may be 2 granted,” or “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” “[The] 3 term ‘frivolous,’ when applied to a complaint, embraces not only the inarguable legal conclusion, 4 but also the fanciful factual allegation.” Neitzke v. Williams,

(1989) 5 (discussing the predecessor to modern § 1915(e)(2), former § 1915(d)). Thus, § 1915(e)(2) 6 allows judges to dismiss a claim based on factual allegations that are clearly baseless, such as 7 facts describing “fantastic or delusional scenarios.” Id. at 327-38. 8 A pro se plaintiff, like other litigants, must satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule 8(a) 9 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a)(2) “requires a complaint to include a short and 10 plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, in order to give the 11 defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. 12 Twombly,

(2007) (citing Conley v. Gibson,

(1957)). 13 While the complaint must comply with the “short and plaint statement” requirements of Rule 8, 14 its allegations must also include the specificity required by Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556

, 679 (2009). 16 To avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more than “naked 17 assertions,” “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of 18 action.” Twombly,

. In other words, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of 19 a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 20 678. 21 Furthermore, a claim upon which the court can grant relief must have facial plausibility. 22 Twombly,

. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual 23 content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 24 misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. When considering whether a complaint states a 25 claim upon which relief can be granted, the court must accept the allegations as true, Erickson v. 26 Pardus,

(2007), and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the 27 plaintiff, see Scheuer v. Rhodes,

(1974). 28 //// 1 Discussion 2 In screening the fourth amended complaint, the court described it as “largely a 3 || compilation of incomprehensible statements.” ECF No. 20 at 3. Plaintiff has not remedied this 4 | in the fifth amended complaint. 5 A complaint that is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim cannot survive screening 6 || under section 1915A(b) and must be dismissed. A claim is frivolous “when the facts alleged arise 7 || to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible, whether or not there are judicially noticeable 8 || facts available to contradict them.” Denton v. Hernandez,

(1992); see also 9 | Neitzke v. Williams,

(1989) (holding that “§ 1915(d)’s term ‘frivolous,’ when 10 || applied to a complaint, embraces not only the inarguable legal conclusion, but also the fanciful 11 | factual allegation.”). Plaintiffs allegations are indecipherable and therefore frivolous. 12 Plaintiff has had five opportunities to state a cognizable claim and has failed to do so. It is 13 || apparent that further amendment would be futile. Accordingly, the fifth amended complaint 14 || should be dismissed without leave to amend. 15 Recommendation 16 Accordingly, IT IS RECOMMENDED that the fifth amended complaint be dismissed 17 || without leave to amend. 18 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 19 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of

(b)(1). Within fourteen days 20 || after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 21 || objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 22 || “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 23 || objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 24 || parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 25 || appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan,

, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez 26 || v. Yist,

(9th Cir. 1991). 27 || Dated: November 10, 2025 Zot? "ltr 7LA1 EDMUND F. BRENNAN 28 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE