1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RAJ SINGH, Case No. 2:24-cv-2454-DAD-JDP (PS) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER; FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

14 CITY OF PLACERVILLE, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff brings this action against defendants City of Placerville, Samuel Emerson, and 18 Mark Adams. I recommend that this action be dismissed for failure to state a claim. I will grant 19 plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, which makes the showing required by 28 20 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 21 Screening and Pleading Requirements 22 A federal court must screen the complaint of any claimant seeking permission to proceed 23 in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The court must identify any cognizable claims and 24 dismiss any portion of the complaint that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon 25 which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 26 relief. Id. 27 28 1 A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief, 2 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 3 face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility standard does not 4 require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 5 662, 678 (2009). If the allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere 6 possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not 7 identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024, 8 1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that 9 give rise to an enforceable right to relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264 10 n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (citations omitted). 11 The court must construe a pro se litigant’s complaint liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 12 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). The court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s complaint “if it 13 appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which 14 would entitle him to relief.” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2017). 15 However, “‘a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements 16 of the claim that were not initially pled.’” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 17 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)). 18 Analysis 19 Plaintiff’s one-page complaint alleges that defendant Emerson took plaintiff’s personal 20 property without providing notice of compensation. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff claims that defendants 21 knew he was the owner of certain personal property that was located in the City of Placerville. 22 Id. He further alleges that defendants only “prosecute minorities . . . for this, [which] is 23 discrimination.” Id. Lastly, he alleges that the City of Placerville has adopted unconstitutional 24 practices that are contrary to public policies. Id. 25 These allegations are too vague and conclusory to provide defendants adequate notice of 26 the factual basis of plaintiff’s claims. Plaintiff does not identify the specific claim or claims he is 27 attempting to assert, and he does not specifically explain how each defendant’s actions harmed 28 him. See Jones v. Cmty. Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984) (“The plaintiff must 1 allege with at least some degree of particularity overt acts which defendants engaged in that 2 support the plaintiff’s claim.”) (quotations omitted). Accordingly, plaintiff’s complaint must be 3 dismissed for failure to state a claim. 4 Granting plaintiff leave to amend would be futile. Plaintiff has filed numerous complaints 5 in this district—each relying on similarly vague and conclusory allegations—that have been 6 dismissed either for failure to state a claim or lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See, e.g., Singh 7 v. City of Placerville, 2:23-cv-0054-DAD-KJN (E.D. Cal. 2023) (dismissing complaint brought 8 against defendants City of Placerville, Samuel Emerson, and Mark Adams for failure to state a 9 claim); Singh v. City of Elk Grove, 2:23-cv-0052-DAD-CKD (E.D. Cal. 2023); Singh v. City of 10 Elk Grove, 2:23-cv-0057-TLN-CKD (E.D. Cal. 2023); Singh v. Internal Revenue Service, 2:23- 11 cv-0053 (E.D. Cal. 2023); Singh v. Fernandes, 2:15-cv-2663-MCE-CKD (E.D. Cal. 2015). Here, 12 the complaint should be dismissed without leave to amend. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 13 1129 (9th Cir. 2000) (“Under Ninth Circuit case law, district courts are only required to grant 14 leave to amend if a complaint can possibly be saved. Courts are not required to grant leave to 15 amend if a complaint lacks merit entirely.”). 16 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma 17 pauperis, ECF No. 2, is granted. 18 Further, it is RECOMMENDED that: 19 1. Plaintiff’s complaint, ECF No. 1, be DISMISSED without leave to amend for failure to 20 state a claim; and 21 2. The Clerk of Court be directed to close this case. 22 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 23 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days of 24 service of these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the 25 court and serve a copy on all parties. Any such document should be captioned “Objections to 26 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations,” and any response shall be served and filed 27 within fourteen days of service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file 28 objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. See 1 Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 2 | 1991). 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: _ January 27, 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