1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAVID ROBERTS, No. 2:22-CV-1789-DAD-DMC-P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, et al., 15 Defendants. 16

17 18 Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 19 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s original complaint, ECF No. 1. 20 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief 21 against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. 22 § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if it: (1) is frivolous or 23 malicious; (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief 24 from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Moreover, 25 the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that complaints contain a “. . . short and plain 26 statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). This 27 means that claims must be stated simply, concisely, and directly. See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 28 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996) (referring to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e)(1)). These rules are satisfied if the 1 | complaint gives the defendant fair notice of the plaintiff's claim and the grounds upon which it 2 || rests. See Kimes v. Stone, 84 F.3d 1121, 1129 (9th Cir. 1996). Because Plaintiff must allege 3 || with at least some degree of particularity overt acts by specific defendants which support the 4 || claims, vague and conclusory allegations fail to satisfy this standard. Additionally, it is 5 || impossible for the Court to conduct the screening required by law when the allegations are vague 6 || and conclusory. 7 Here, Plaintiff challenges deductions of child support payments from various 8 || government stimulus checks. See ECF No. 1. The Court finds that Plaintiff fails to state a claim 9 || upon which relief can be granted because such deductions are permitted by the Offset Program 10 || authorized under 45 C.F.R. § 303.72 and the Administrative Offset Program authorized under 31 11 | U.S.C. § 3716. Plaintiff has not alleged a violation of federal law which 1s actionable under § 12 | 1983 13 Because it does not appear possible that the deficiencies identified herein can be 14 | cured by amending the complaint, Plaintiff is not entitled to leave to amend prior to dismissal of 15 || the entire action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 16 Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that this action be dismissed 17 || with prejudice for failure to state a claim. 18 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 19 || Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(I). Within 14 days 20 | after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 21 || objections with the court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of 22 || objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal. See 23 || Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 24 25 | Dated: December 21, 2022 Co 26 DENNIS M. COTA 07 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 28