1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 GARRED F. NORMAN, Case No. 22-cv-05154-JSC

8 Plaintiff,

SCREENING ORDER PURSUANT TO

9 v. 28 U.S.C. § 1915

10 THE WHITE HOUSE, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 1 Defendants. 11

12 13 The Court has granted Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and therefore is 14 required to review the sufficiency of Plaintiff’s complaint to determine whether it satisfies 28 15 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s claims are 16 insufficiently pled. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the complaint is DISMISSED. Plaintiff may 17 file an amended complaint on or before October 24, 2022. 18 BACKGROUND 19 I. The Complaint 20 Plaintiff names 34 individuals and entities as defendants in this matter. (Dkt. No. 1 at 3– 21 7.) In his “statement of facts,” Plaintiff alleges the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) 22 drugged him and attempted to entrap or frame him for a murder. He also states that FBI Agents 23 (1) killed a man in San Pedro, California; (2) “sold crack cocaine that lead [sic] to a Genocide on 24 Black Americans”; (3) attempted to murder his father and mother in law; (4) “infused Plaintiff 25 with some powerful drugs to alter his mind so that he might become psychotic and murder his 26 daughter”; (5) gave Plaintiff drugs to give to his daughter; (6) physically abused his other 27 daughter; and (7) dated his mother and aided in her untimely death. (Id. at 8–11.) Plaintiff also 1 [him] to be sexually assaulted and hung [him] over an overpassed freeway in downtown Los 2 Angeles.” (Id. at 11.) 3 He lists that his claims arise under Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 4 388 (1971) and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985. Under “Demand for Relief,” Plaintiff states that he 5 paid the Alameda, Sacramento, and Santa Clara County Bar Associations and hasn’t yet received 6 legal services. (Id. at 12.) He requests that other defendants “intervene to ensure that [his] 7 fundamental[] rights are upheld to retain an attorney.” (Id.) 8 Plaintiff also attaches a series of documents to the complaint. First, he attaches a list of 38 9 legal rights, terms, and crimes. (Id. at 14.) Next, he attaches a copy of “General Order 25,” which 10 discusses this Court’s authority to appoint pro bono counsel. (Id. at 15.) Third, he attaches two 11 letters outlining the FBI abuses listed above. (Id. at 19–26.) The addresses below each letter list 12 various public officials as recipients. Finally, Plaintiff includes a list of 242 “accusations,” which 13 include questions such as “1. Who is my x sister in law, Christine Capuyan, does she work for the 14 FBI?”—and allegations such as “6. I believe FBI agents caused an unnecessary physical 15 altercation with me at a nightclub in San Jose, CA.” (Id. at 27–42.) 16 II. Plaintiff’s Previous Cases in this Court 17 Plaintiff has filed at least five cases in this Court with similar allegations and many of the 18 same legal documents. 19 1. 18-cv-6658 MMC 20 Plaintiff attempted to file a complaint in this Court naming the FBI as the sole defendant. 21 He alleged that the FBI violated his constitutional rights by conspiring to frame him for a murder 22 he did not commit; “stalking” his family and “interfering” with his marriage; interfering with his 23 real estate business by diverting customers; calling him by a racial epithet, battering him and using 24 a vicious dog on him; using “kill switches” to run his family off the road; and overmedicating and 25 battering his daughter. (Case No. 18-cv-6658, Dkt. No. 1.) The Court denied Plaintiff’s request to 26 file the complaint in forma pauperis without prejudice. (Id., Dkt. No. 8.) Plaintiff never amended 27 his application, and the case was dismissed without prejudice. (Id., Dkt. No. 14.) 1 2. 19-cv-1173 MMC 2 Plaintiff again sued the FBI and added as defendants the State Bar of California, the 3 Alameda County Bar Association and Attorney John Burris. The allegations in that case relate 4 only to the FBI; there are no factual allegations relating to the other defendants. The allegations 5 relating to the FBI repeat allegations in Case No. 18-cv-6658, discussed above. (See Case No. 19- 6 cv-1173, Dkt. No. 1.) The Court again denied Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis 7 on the basis that he did not submit sufficient information to allow it to determine whether he was 8 indigent. (Id., Dkt. No. 10.) As Plaintiff did not file an amended application or pay the filing fee, 9 that case also was dismissed without prejudice. (Id., Dkt. No. 16.) 10 3. 20-cv-1042 VC 11 Plaintiff filed another lawsuit in this Court, naming as defendants the State Bar of 12 California, the Alameda County Bar Association, the East Bay Community Law Center, and 13 attorney John Burris. (Case No. 20-cv-1042, Dkt. No. 1.) In that case, he asserted that his 14 Constitutional right to an attorney under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments was violated. (Id.) 15 The Court granted Plaintiff’s amended application to file in forma pauperis but dismissed the 16 complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (Id., Dkt. No. 10.) The Court explained:

17 Norman alleges violations of his constitutional rights under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments because various defendants did not 18 provide him with legal representation and were otherwise involved in a murder conspiracy. The Sixth Amendment right to counsel applies 19 only in criminal proceedings. Turner v. Rogers, 564 U.S. 431, 441 (2011). Norman’s complaint does not provide any allegations 20 regarding criminal proceedings (other than a vague allegation that Norman was “falsely accused of murder”), much less plausible 21 allegations that the defendants, acting under color of state law, deprived Norman of counsel during those proceedings. Broam v. 22 Bogan, 320 F.3d 1023, 1028 (9th Cir. 2003). Similarly, the complaint does not allege facts that plausibly give rise to a claim for violation of 23 Norman’s due process right to counsel. Turner, 564 U.S. at 442-43 (noting presumption that “an indigent litigant has a right to appointed 24 counsel only when, if he loses, he may be deprived of his physical liberty”). 25 26 (Id. at 1–2.) The Court granted leave to amend but Plaintiff never filed an amended complaint. 27 The Court then dismissed the case with prejudice. 1 4. 22-cv-2390 AGT 2 Earlier this year, Plaintiff filed another lawsuit against the State Bar of California, the 3 Alameda County Bar Association, the East Bay Community Law Center, and attorney John 4 Burris. That case is still pending. 5 5. 22-cv-02627 VC 6 Just weeks after filing Case No. 22-cv-2390, Plaintiff filed another lawsuit in this Court. 7 This time, Plaintiff sued the FBI, the State Bar of California, the Alameda County Bar 8 Association, the East Bay Community Law Center, attorney John Burris, and the Asian Law 9 Alliance. (Case No. 22-cv-02627, Dkt. No. 1.) Plaintiff asserted claims under “42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 10 and 1985 and the Fourteenth Amendment.” (Id.) In the statement of facts, he alleged that he paid 11 for legal services but never received legal referral services. (Id.) Plaintiff also filed the list of 12 “accusations,” letters, and the copy of General Order 25 attached to the complaint in this matter. 13 (Id., Dkt. No. 5.) His demand for relief requested that the Court compel the FBI to stop interfering 14 with his legal rights to obtain counsel and stated that he was “seeking legal support from the 15 following agencies and attorneys attached to this complaint.” (Id., Dkt. No. 1.) 16 The Court issued an Order that Plaintiff should show cause why the case should not be 17 dismissed. (Id., Dkt. No. 8.) The Court informed Plaintiff that the Complaint failed to state a 18 claim because (1) the claims were duplicative with Plaintiff’s earlier dismissed lawsuit (No. 20-cv- 19 1042), and (2) Plaintiff failed to state a plausible claim that any defendant violated his Fourteenth 20 Amendment rights or conspired to commit a civil rights violation. (Id.) In addition, the Court 21 stated that the “hundreds of alleged violations and accusations in the attachment to his Complaint” 22 were “too vague and conclusory to state any plausible claim,” and were “fanciful and therefore 23 frivolous within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1915.” (Id.) Plaintiff did not show cause to maintain 24 his suit and the case was dismissed with prejudice in August 2022. (Id., Dkt. No. 19.) 25 DISCUSSION 26 When a plaintiff is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, courts must engage in 27 screening and dismiss any claims which: (1) are frivolous or malicious; (2) fail to state a claim on 1 such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see Marks v. Solcum, 98 F.3d 494, 495 (9th Cir. 1996). The 2 “term ‘frivolous,’ when applied to a complaint, embraces not only the inarguable legal conclusion, 3 but also the fanciful factual allegation.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). 4 I. Legal Standard 5 To state a claim for relief, a plaintiff must make “a short and plain statement of the claim 6 showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Further, a claim may be 7 dismissed for “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); 8 see also Diaz v. Int’l Longshore and Warehouse Union, Local 13, 474 F.3d 1202, 1205 (9th Cir. 9 2007). In determining whether a plaintiff fails to state a claim, the court takes “all allegations of 10 material fact in the complaint as true and construe[s] them in the light most favorable to the 11 nonmoving party.” Cedars-Sinai Med. Ctr. v. Nat’l League of Postmasters of U.S., 497 F.3d 972, 12 975 (9th Cir. 2007). However, “the tenet that a court must accept a complaint’s allegations as true 13 is inapplicable to legal conclusions [and] mere conclusory statements,” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 14 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)), and courts “do not 15 necessarily assume the truth of legal conclusions merely because they are cast in the form of 16 factual allegations.” Coto Settlement v. Eisenberg, 593 F.3d 1031, 1034 (9th Cir. 2010) (internal 17 quotation marks omitted). The complaint need not contain “detailed factual allegations,” but must 18 allege facts sufficient to “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 678 (citing 19 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). 20 Where the complaint has been filed without a lawyer’s assistance, courts must “construe 21 the pleadings liberally . . . to afford the petitioner the benefit of any doubt.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 22 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010). “A pro se litigant must be given leave to amend his or her 23 complaint unless it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies in the complaint could not be cured by 24 amendment.” Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987), superseded on other grounds 25 by statute, as recognized in Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). Further, 26 when it dismisses the complaint of a pro se litigant with leave to amend, “the district court must 27 provide the litigant with notice of the deficiencies in his complaint in order to ensure that the 1 1261 (9th Cir. 1992)). “Without the benefit of a statement of deficiencies, the pro se litigant will 2 || likely repeat previous errors.” Karim-Panahi v. L.A. Police Dep’t, 839 F.2d 621, 624 (9th Cir. 3 1988) (quoting Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987)). 4 II. Analysis 5 Applying this standard, Plaintiff's complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be 6 || granted. Plaintiff's complaint does not state any plausible, specific factual allegations suggesting 7 any of the named defendants violated his civil rights or conspired to violate his civil rights. While 8 Plaintiff describes various FBI actions that allegedly violated his rights, Plaintiff mostly refers to 9 the FBI and “FBI Agents” in general. While he specifically references an agent known as 10 || “Sonnyman the Sandwich man,” that person is not named as a defendant in this action. The FBI is 11 not a “person” suable under 42 U.S.C. Sections 1983 and 1985. The Bivens doctrine does allow 12 suit in certain circumstances against federal officials. Under Bivens a plaintiff may sue federal 13 officers in their individual, rather than official capacity. Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 14 403 U.S. 388, 397 (1971). But Plaintiff does not describe the actions of any specific, identifiable 3 15 individual defendant. And federal agencies may not be sued in a Bivens Action. F.D.I.C. v. a 16 || Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 484-86 (1994). 3 17 In sum, Plaintiffs allegations are insufficient to state a claim. Indeed, while the 18 || allegations here are slightly different from those in Case No. 22-cv-2627, many of the allegations 19 in this complaint and the attached documents also appear to be “fanciful” and therefore frivolous 20 within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1915. See Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 325. 21 CONCLUSION 22 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend. Any 23 amended complaint must be filed on or before October 24, 2022. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 Dated: September 26, 2022 26 27 appetite Selo

JAQQUELINE SCOTT CORL

28 United States District Judge