1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Case 2:23-cv-02328-TLN-AC Document 3 Filed 10/18/23 Page 1 of 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`ANJON MAREQUIS DOUGLAS,
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`WALT DISNEY 20th CENTURY FOX
`STUDIOS,
`
`Defendant.
`
`No. 2:23-cv-2328 TLN AC PS
`
`ORDER AND
`FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
`
`
`Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was accordingly referred to the
`
`undersigned by E.D. Cal. 302(c)(21). Plaintiff has filed a request for leave to proceed in forma
`pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, and has submitted the affidavit required by that
`statute. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). ECF No. 2. The motion to proceed IFP will therefore be
`GRANTED.
`
`I. SCREENING
`The federal IFP statute requires federal courts to dismiss a case if the action is legally
`
`“frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks
`monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
`Plaintiff must assist the court in determining whether or not the complaint is frivolous, by drafting
`the complaint so that it complies with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Fed. R. Civ. P.”).
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 2:23-cv-02328-TLN-AC Document 3 Filed 10/18/23 Page 2 of 4
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the complaint must contain (1) a “short and plain
`statement” of the basis for federal jurisdiction (that is, the reason the case is filed in this court,
`rather than in a state court), (2) a short and plain statement showing that plaintiff is entitled to
`relief (that is, who harmed the plaintiff, and in what way), and (3) a demand for the relief sought.
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Plaintiff’s claims must be set forth simply, concisely and directly. Fed. R.
`Civ. P. 8(d)(1).
`
`A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.
`Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the
`court will (1) accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in the complaint, unless they
`are clearly baseless or fanciful, (2) construe those allegations in the light most favorable to the
`plaintiff, and (3) resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor. See Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327; Von
`Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art at Pasadena, 592 F.3d 954, 960 (9th Cir. 2010), cert.
`denied, 564 U.S. 1037 (2011).
`The court applies the same rules of construction in determining whether the complaint
`states a claim on which relief can be granted. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (court
`must accept the allegations as true); Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974) (court must
`construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff). Pro se pleadings are held to a
`less stringent standard than those drafted by lawyers. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520
`(1972). However, the court need not accept as true conclusory allegations, unreasonable
`inferences, or unwarranted deductions of fact. Western Mining Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d 618,
`624 (9th Cir. 1981). A formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action does not suffice
`to state a claim. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-57 (2007); Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
`
`To state a claim on which relief may be granted, the plaintiff must allege enough facts “to
`state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A claim has
`facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the
`reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at
`678. A pro se litigant is entitled to notice of the deficiencies in the complaint and an opportunity
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 2:23-cv-02328-TLN-AC Document 3 Filed 10/18/23 Page 3 of 4
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`to amend, unless the complaint’s deficiencies could not be cured by amendment. See Noll v.
`Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987).
`A. The Complaint
`Plaintiff sues defendant for stealing his intellectual property before he creates it. It
`appears plaintiff believes that defendant is observing his life and putting it in film. The entire
`substance of the complaint reads as follows: “Guess who Film is the Best look of how the
`Industry steals intellectual property as they try to get knowing my life and learn the dance. I have
`always been better. It’s like they still get the words before they are able to be applied. I was
`going to say something later that only left with the [unintelligible] of which they made like a
`Bump Bump Bump music film [unintelligible] GUESS Who Film.” Id. at 5. Plaintiff contends
`he is owed $200,000 in damages. Id. at 6.
`
`B. Analysis
`Plaintiff does not state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and his complaint must
`be dismissed. The complaint does not contain facts supporting any cognizable legal claim against
`any defendant. The court finds that the complaint consists entirely of delusional allegations. The
`contents of the complaint make it apparent that amendment would be futile. The undersigned will
`therefore recommend that the complaint be dismissed with prejudice. Noll, 809 F.2d at 1448.
`II. CONCLUSION
`IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF
`
`No. 2) is GRANTED.
`Additionally, the undersigned recommends that the complaint (ECF No. 1) be
`DISMISSED with prejudice because it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. It
`is further recommended that leave to amend not be granted because amendment would be futile.
`These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge
`assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within twenty one days
`after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections
`with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Id.; see also Local Rule 304(b). Such a document
`should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`Case 2:23-cv-02328-TLN-AC Document 3 Filed 10/18/23 Page 4 of 4
`
`to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s
`order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153,
`1156-57 (9th Cir. 1991).
`DATED: October 18, 2023
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`