1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 FROY DIAZ BRITO, Case No. 2:25-cv-1232-DAD-JDP (PS) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER; FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

14 TSA, et al.,

15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff brings this action against multiple federal and county defendants, purporting to 18 allege claims under Title 18 of the United States Code and Clinical Laboratory Improvement 19 Amendments of 1988, 42 U.S.C. 263a. The complaint’s allegations are frivolous and fail to state 20 a claim. Accordingly, I recommend plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed without leave to amend. I 21 will grant plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, which makes the 22 showing required by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(a)(1) and (2). 23 Screening and Pleading Requirements 24 A federal court must screen the complaint of any claimant seeking permission to proceed 25 in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The court must identify any cognizable claims and 26 dismiss any portion of the complaint that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon 27 which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 28 relief. Id. 1 2 A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief, 3 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 4 face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility standard does not 5 require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 6 662, 678 (2009). If the allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere 7 possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not 8 identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024, 9 1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that 10 give rise to an enforceable right to relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264 11 n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (citations omitted). 12 The court must construe a pro se litigant’s complaint liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 13 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). The court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s complaint “if it 14 appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which 15 would entitle him to relief.” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2017). 16 However, “‘a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements 17 of the claim that were not initially pled.’” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 18 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)). 19 Analysis 20 The complaint’s allegations are incomprehensible. Plaintiff alleges that a school was held 21 captive and that the situation “originated from the interment [sic] camps of FEMA out in San 22 Bernadino County . . . .” ECF No. 1 at 5. She then goes on to make vague references to scientific 23 research and studying forensic psychology and “biblical forensics.” Id. Plaintiff concludes by 24 stating that “[a]s kids we’re also being advertise[d] remotely by cyber security for examination 25 while being tortured.” Id. 26 According to the complaint, this action is brought under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1591 and 2340 and 27 the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 (“CLIA”), 42 U.S.C. § 263a. To the 28 extent plaintiff is attempting to state a claim under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act 1 (“TVPRA”) based on a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1591, she fails to do so. See Doe v. Wyndham 2 Hotels & Resorts, Inc., 2025 WL 824369, *5 (S.D Cal. Mar. 14, 2025) (“To invoke the TVPRA, a 3 plaintiff must plausibly allege that she was ‘a victim of a violation of this chapter.’ Section 1591, 4 in turn, requires Plaintiff to establish that she was ‘harbor[ed]’ or ‘provid[ed]’ and ‘cause[d] . . . 5 to engage in a commercial sex act’ by ‘means of force, threats of force, fraud, [or] coercion.’”). 6 Plaintiff also fails to state claims for violations of 18 U.S.C. § 2340 and the CLIA since neither 7 provides for a private right of action. See, e.g., Loadholt v. Obama, No. 2:13-cv-2607-MCE-EFB 8 PS, 2015 WL 848549, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 26, 2015) (finding no private right of action under 18 9 U.S.C. § 2340); Belser v. Quest Diagnostics, Inc., No. 3:16-0972-MBS, 2020 WL 6526084, at 10 *13 (D.S.C. Nov. 5, 2020) (holding that the “CLIA does not provide for a private right of 11 action”); Whitehead v. Edmondson, No. 1:97CV29-S-D, 1998 WL 173226, at *5 (N.D. Miss. 12 Mar. 24, 1998) (“[T]he court finds that . . . CLIA does not provide a private right of action to 13 individuals . . . .”). 14 Aside from plaintiff’s failure to state a claim, her complaint is frivolous because it lacks 15 even “an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (holding 16 that a complaint is frivolous if its “factual contentions are clearly baseless,” “fantastic,” or 17 “delusional”). The complaint should therefore be dismissed without leave to amend. See Lopez 18 v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000) (“Under Ninth Circuit case law, district courts are 19 only required to grant leave to amend if a complaint can possibly be saved. Courts are not 20 required to grant leave to amend if a complaint lacks merit entirely.”). 21 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, 22 ECF No. 2, is granted. 23 Further, it is RECOMMENDED that: 24 1. Plaintiff’s complaint, ECF No. 1, be DISMISSED without leave to amend. 25 2. 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 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days of 28 service of these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the 1 | court and serve a copy on all parties. Any such document should be captioned “Objections to 2 | Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations,” and any response shall be served and filed 3 | within fourteen days of service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file 4 | objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. See 5 | Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 6 | 1991). 7 g IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: _ May 5, 2025 aw—— 10 JEREMY D. PETERSON i UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28