1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 BRANDEN WILLIE ISELI, Case No. 22-cv-06140-PCP

8 Plaintiff,

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT

9 v. WITH PREJUDICE

10 ALL OF THE ALEG, Defendant. 11

12 13 Branden Iseli filed this pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Dkt. No. 1. The 14 Court reviewed the initial complaint and dismissed it with instructions on how to amend. Dkt. No. 15 16 (“Screening Order”). Mr. Iseli thereafter filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) and a 16 Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”). Dkt. Nos. 18, 19. 17 The Court reviews the FAC and SAC pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. This action is 18 DISMISSED because Mr. Iseli did not comply with the Court’s instructions and because the FAC 19 and SAC do not state a cognizable claim for relief. 20 I. Legal Standard 21 Federal courts must screen any case in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental 22 entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must 23 identify cognizable claims and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim 24 upon which relief may be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant immune from such 25 relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. 26 Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). 27 To state a § 1983 claim, a plaintiff must allege two elements: (1) that a right secured by the 1 a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 2 II. Analysis 3 In its prior screening order, the Court provided detailed amendment instructions to Mr. 4 Iseli. He failed to comply with those instructions, and failed to state a cognizable claim for relief 5 in his FAC or SAC. 6 In the prior order, the Court noted that the face of the complaint suggested Mr. Iseli had 7 failed to exhaust his administrative remedies before filing suit, and instructed him to clearly 8 describe his efforts to exhaust. Screening Order at 3-4. In contravention of these instructions, it 9 still is unclear whether Mr. Iseli exhausted his administrative remedies before filing suit. In his 10 FAC, Mr. Iseli “plead[s] the 5th Amendment” regarding his exhaustion efforts. FAC at 1. In his 11 SAC, Mr. Iseli simultaneously claims that he exhausted, and claims that he did not but that “fact 12 by discovery” would show why. SAC at 3, 4. Mr. Iseli thus did not “prove that he exhausted all of 13 his claims before he filed this action,” as he was instructed to do. Screening Order at 4 (emphasis 14 in original). 15 The Court also instructed Mr. Iseli to identify the defendants who harmed him and the 16 ways in which each defendant caused him harm. Screening Order at 5-7. In contravention of these 17 instructions, Mr. Iseli neither identifies a suitable defendant nor explains how any defendant 18 harmed him. The FAC sued “All of the ALEG” without explaining what “ALEG” is, whether this 19 person or entity was acting under state law, or what wrong this defendant committed. FAC at 1. 20 The SAC sues the State of California, although Mr. Iseli was already told this is impermissible. 21 Compare SAC at 1 with Screening Order at 7. The SAC also sues “Fact by Discovery” and Judge 22 Gonzalez Rogers without identifying how either defendant harmed him. SAC at 3. Mr. Iseli thus 23 did not “state the specific acts of the defendant that violated the plaintiff’s rights,” as he was 24 instructed to do. Screening Order at 4. 25 The Court also instructed Mr. Iseli to articulate his claims clearly and to “set forth specific 26 facts explaining the circumstances of each claim,” as instructed. Screening Order at 7. Mr. Iseli’s 27 FAC does not comply with these instructions, but rather describes the case as follows: offer of proof to the Court related to such surcomstances, property 1 damages, pain and suffering per claim individually, and all that’s facted by discovery and claims of such, incompitancies as well pain, 2 and suffering, rights to a fair review, pending due process, if possible a physical appearance for completion of relief if granted, and a trust 3 fund account of the max, and a emergency notice - Covid 19 virus and all that applies to such notice[.] Just the relief on Covid 19 virus it self 4 can be worth billions of dollars, “Red Bull did not give the person wings,” “the person won $150,000,000 in law suit due to such” the 5 red bull part a topic of reference for relief requested. 6 FAC at 2-3 (errors in original). This statement does not identify any wrong suffered by Mr. Iseli or 7 any Constitutional or statutory right that was violated, much less provide facts to support his 8 claims. Mr. Iseli thus failed to comply with the Court’s instructions, and failed to state a claim. 9 Likewise, none of the SAC’s claims are cognizable. In his first claim, Mr. Iseli complains 10 of “a state fier that accurde in Crescent City” while he was incarcerated in the vicinity. Id. at 4. As 11 Mr. Iseli was already informed, a § 1983 claim cannot be premised on a random and unauthorized 12 deprivation of property such as that caused by a fire. Screening Order at 6 (explaining this claim is 13 not cognizable, and citing cases). In his second claim, Mr. Iseli complains generally of the 14 COVID-19 virus, but does not identify any specific harms he suffered or provide any facts 15 regarding how the COVID-19 virus affected him. SAC at 5. In his third claim, Mr. Iseli complains 16 of a “state fier that accurde in Paradise, California” while he was incarcerated, id. at 6, but does 17 not explain how he was harmed by a fire that occurred nearly 300 miles away from his place of 18 incarceration, nor how the fire could be attributed to any defendant, see generally, id. Finally, Mr. 19 Iseli asks the Court to review an Eastern District of California decision denying his habeas 20 petition. Id. at 10-24. This claim is not cognizable because this Court has no power to review the 21 decision of another federal district court. If Mr. Iseli disagrees with the Eastern District decision, 22 his remedy lies in an appeal. 23 A district court may deny leave to amend if it finds any of: “(1) bad faith, (2) undue delay, 24 (3) prejudice to the opposing party, (4) futility of amendment; [or] (5) [the] plaintiff has 25 previously amended his complaint.” Allen v. City of Beverly Hills, 911 F.2d 367, 373 (9th Cir. 26 1990). Here, Mr. Iseli was given an opportunity and detailed instructions on how to amend but still 27 did not state a cognizable claim for relief. The Court concludes that further leave to amend would ] 1994) (leave to amend need not be given where amendment would be futile). 2 || I. CONCLUSION 3 This action is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 4 || Because amendment would be futile, dismissal is without leave to amend and with prejudice. 5 The Clerk shall close the file. 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 Dated: October 20, 2023 9 Ze 10 gb P. Casey Pitt United States District Judge as 12

«14

16

17

Oo

Z 18

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28