Nazareth v. The State of California

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 YAH'OSHAI BIN NAZARETH, Case No. 25-cv-00725-JSW 8 Plaintiff, ORDER OF DISMISSAL v. 9 10 THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Defendant. 11 12 INTRODUCTION 13 Plaintiff, who is confined at Atascadero State Prison and is proceeding pro se, filed a civil 14 rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the State of California and the California 15 Department of State Hospitals. For the reasons discussed below, the complaint is DISMISSED for 16 failure to state a cognizable claim for relief. 17 ANALYSIS 18 A. STANDARD OF REVIEW 19 Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek 20 redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 21 1915A(a).1 In its review the court must identify any cognizable claims, and dismiss any claims 22 which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek 23 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. at § 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro 24 se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 25 (9th Cir. 1990). 26 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only "a short and plain statement of the 27 1 claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." "Specific facts are not necessary; the 2 statement need only '"give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . . claim is and the grounds upon 3 which it rests."'" Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007) (citations omitted). Although 4 in order to state a claim a complaint “does not need detailed factual allegations, . . . a plaintiff's 5 obligation to provide the 'grounds of his 'entitle[ment] to relief' requires more than labels and 6 conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. . . . 7 Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Bell 8 Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007) (citations omitted). A complaint 9 must proffer "enough facts to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face." Id. at 1974. 10 B. LEGAL CLAIMS 11 Plaintiff claims to have suffered “a series of violations under the 6th Amendment” and 12 “damages, loss of property and wages.” (ECF No. 2 at 2.) He alleges the State of California 13 “entered my property into a contract” which is “contrary to law” using “duress and undue 14 influence.” (Id.) He “alerted the courts that [he was] the representative of Marcus James 15 Pledgure[2] and that [he] did not consent to the State of California presiding over my property.” 16 (Id.) He further alleges the State “willfully infringed” his “rights to obtain a commercial 17 advantage.” (Id.) He asserts “any corperation [sic] violating my Sixth Amendment right under 18 equal protection of the law public interest will be prejudiced by premitting [sic] the contract to 19 stand: title Marcus James Pledgure.” (Id.) He seeks “contract extinguishment” and monetary 20 damages. (Id.) 21 Plaintiff’s allegations he is the “representative” of himself are incomprehensible and as 22 such lack any plausible basis in law of fact. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989). 23 His other allegations are hardly any more comprehensible. He refers to a “contract” between 24 himself and the State of California, but he does not allege the nature of that contract, identify any 25 such contract or its terms, how Defendants breached them, or how any such breach violated 26 federal law. He refers to the Sixth Amendment, which does not apply to contracts, and “equal 27 ] protection” is a guarantee of like treatment for similarly situated people, which is not implicated 2 || by any of his allegations. Lastly, the Defendants, the State of California and the California 3 Department of State Hospitals, are immune from damages under the Eleventh Amendment. See 4 || Atascadero State Hosp. v. Scanlon, 473 U.S. 234, 237-38 (1985). For these reasons, Plaintiff does 5 || not state a cognizable claim for relief. The Court discerns no possibility that they could be cured 6 || by amendment. 7 CONCLUSION 8 For the above reasons, the complaint is DISMISSED without leave to amend. The Clerk 9 || shall enter judgment and close the file. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 Dated: February 3, 2025 ~ Cb low 13 \ AL 7 JHFFREY SPYWHITE {// } jnited Stayés District Judge fy PD / 16 Oo Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28