1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SHANNON O. MURPHY, Sr., Case No. 2:23-cv-01715-KJM-JDP (PS) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION

TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

14 DOLLAR GENERAL CORPORATION, ECF No. 2 15 Defendant.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

16

THAT PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT BE

17 DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND

FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM

18 ECF No. 1 19

OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN

20 DAYS 21 22 Plaintiff brings this action against defendant Dollar General Corporation. His complaint, 23 however, fails to state a cognizable claim, and I will therefore recommend dismissal of this 24 action. I will also grant plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, which 25 makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(a)(1) and (2). 26 27 28 1 Screening and Pleading Requirements 2 Plaintiff’s complaint is subject to screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). That statute 3 requires the court to dismiss any action filed by a plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis that is 4 frivolous or malicious, that fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seeks 5 monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from suit. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 6 A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief, 7 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 8 face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility standard does not 9 require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 10 662, 678 (2009). If the allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere 11 possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not 12 identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024, 13 1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that 14 give rise to an enforceable right to relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264 15 n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (citations omitted). 16 The court must construe a pro se litigant’s complaint liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 17 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). The court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s complaint “if it 18 appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which 19 would entitle him to relief.” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2017). 20 However, “‘a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements 21 of the claim that were not initially pled.’” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 22 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)). 23 Analysis 24 The complaint fails to state a cognizable claim. Plaintiff alleges claims for negligence, 25 breach of contract, discrimination, harassment, and assault, but does not describe the events 26 giving rise to his purported claims. ECF No. 1 at 2. His allegations do not describe what 27 happened, how he was injured, or how defendant was responsible for any injury. Instead, each 28 claim is accompanied by a collection of words that neither I nor the defendant can reasonably be 1 || expected to comprehend. Such filings are typical of plaintiff. See Murphy v. Antioch Police 2 | Department, 2:23-cv-01458-DJC-JDP at ECF No. 1; Murphy v. Nation’s Giant Hamburgers, 3 | 2:23-cv-00852-DJC-JDP at ECF No. 1; see also Murphy v. First Republic Bank, N.A., No. 2:21- 4 | cv-00399-JAM-CKD (PS) (discussing plaintiff's repeated failure to establish subject matter 5 | jurisdiction and satisfy the pleading standard); Murphy v. Federal Express Corp., No. 2:21-cv- 6 | 00142-KJM-KJM (PS); Murphy v. Farmers Ins. Co., No. 2:20-cv-1456-KJM-DB (PS). 7 | Accordingly, I find that granting plaintiff leave to amend would be futile. See Janicki Logging 8 | Co. v. Mateer, 42 F.3d 561, 566 (9th Cir. 1994) (leave to amend need not be granted where it 9 | “constitutes an exercise in futility”). 10 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiff's request for leave to proceed in forma 11 | pauperis, ECF No. 2, is granted. 12 Further, it is RECOMMENDED that plaintiff's complaint, ECF No. 1, be DISMISSED 13 || without leave to amend for failure to state a cognizable claim. 14 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 15 | assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(). Within fourteen days 16 || after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 17 | objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 18 | “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 19 | objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 20 | parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 21 appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez 22 | v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 23

IT IS SO ORDERED.

25 ( 1 Oy — Dated: _ January 24, 2024 Q———— 26 JEREMY D,. PETERSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

28