1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MELVIN JAMAN PEETE, Case No. 2:23-cv-01619-TLN-JDP (PC) 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13 v. THAT THE COMPLAINT FAILS TO

STATE A COGNIZABLE CLAIM AND

14 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THIS ACTION COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al., BE DISMISSED 15 Defendants. ECF No. 9 16

OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN

17 DAYS 18 19 20 21 Plaintiff, a state prisoner at Mule Creek State Prison, brings this § 1983 action against the 22 Sacramento County Superior Court and, as best I can tell, alleges that they have mishandled his 23 filings and issued incorrect rulings against him. ECF No. 9 at 8-9. These allegations do not state 24 a claim upon which relief may be granted and should be dismissed without leave to amend. 25 Screening Order 26 I. Screening and Pleading Requirements 27 A federal court must screen a prisoner’s complaint that seeks relief against a governmental 28 entity, officer, or employee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must identify any cognizable 1 claims and dismiss any portion of the complaint that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a 2 claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is 3 immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b)(1), (2). 4 A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief, 5 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 6 face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility standard does not 7 require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 8 662, 678 (2009). If the allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere 9 possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not 10 identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024, 11 1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that 12 give rise to an enforceable right to relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264 13 n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (citations omitted). 14 The court must construe a pro se litigant’s complaint liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 15 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). The court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s complaint “if it 16 appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which 17 would entitle him to relief.” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2017). 18 However, “‘a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements 19 of the claim that were not initially pled.’” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 20 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)). 21 II. Analysis 22 As in his previous filings, plaintiff claims that he is a sovereign Moorish American, ECF 23 No. 9 at 3, 5—relying on a type of legal theory that has been roundly rejected by federal courts. 24 See United States v. Benabe, 654 F.3d 753, 767 (7th Cir. 2011) (“We have repeatedly rejected 25 their theories of individual sovereignty, immunity from prosecution, and their ilk.”); United States 26 v. Ward, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 9255, *5-6 (9th Cir. 1999) (deeming sovereign citizen argument 27 “frivolous”) (unpublished). And the Sacramento County Superior Court is not a viable defendant 28 in a § 1983 action. See Will v. Michigan Dept. Of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989) (“We hold 1 | that neither a State nor its officials acting in their official capacities are ‘persons’ under § 1983.”); 2 | see also Greater L.A. Council on Deafness, Inc. v. Zolin, 812 F.2d 1103, 1110 (9th Cir. 1987) 3 | CA] suit against the Superior Court is a suit against the State, barred by the eleventh 4 | amendment.”). 5 Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that the operative complaint, ECF No. 9, be 6 | DISMISSED without leave to amend for failure to state a viable claim under § 1983. 7 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 8 | assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(). Within fourteen days 9 | after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 10 | objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 11 || “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 12 | objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 13 | parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 14 || appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 16 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 ( q oy — Dated: _ January 16, 2024 19 JEREMY D. PETERSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28