Case 1:24-cv-00969-JLT-SKO Document 4 Filed 09/10/24 Page 1 of 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`SHANNON R. POWELL,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`
`
`THE UNITED STATES, et al.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 1:24-cv-00969-JLT-SKO
`
`
`FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
`THAT PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT BE
`DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE
`
`(Doc. 1)
`
`THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE
`
`On August 19, 2024, Plaintiff Shannon R. Powell (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, filed an
`
`action. (Doc. 1.) On that same date, Plaintiff also filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis,
`
`which was granted on August 21, 2024. (Docs. 2 & 3.) Plaintiff’s complaint is now before the
`
`Court for screening. Upon review, the undersigned finds that the claims presented in Plaintiff's
`
`complaint are frivolous and will recommend that the action be dismissed with prejudice.
`
`I.
`
`SCREENING REQUIREMENT AND STANDARD
`
`In cases where the plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court is required to screen
`
`each case and shall dismiss the case at any time if the Court determines that the allegation of poverty
`
`is untrue, or that the action or appeal is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which
`
`relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). See also Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (dismissal required
`
`of in forma pauperis proceedings which seek monetary relief from immune defendants); Cato v.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-00969-JLT-SKO Document 4 Filed 09/10/24 Page 2 of 4
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995) (district court has discretion to dismiss in forma
`
`pauperis complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193 (9th Cir.
`
`1998) (affirming sua sponte dismissal for failure to state a claim). If the Court determines that a
`
`complaint fails to state a claim, leave to amend may be granted to the extent that the deficiencies of
`
`the complaint can be cured by amendment. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000) (en
`
`6
`
`banc).
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. See
`
`Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th
`
`Cir. 1984). When applied to a complaint, the term “frivolous” embraces both the inarguable legal
`
`conclusion and the fanciful factual allegation. See Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 325. The Court may,
`
`therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory or
`
`where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Id. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a
`
`constitutional claim, however inartfully pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See
`
`Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1989); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227. The Court need
`
`not accept the allegations in the complaint as true, but must determine whether they are fanciful,
`
`fantastic, or delusional. See Denson v Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992) (quoting Neitzke, 490
`
`17
`
`U.S. at 328).
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`II.
`
`DISCUSSION
`
`Review of Plaintiff’s complaint reveals that it must be dismissed for failure to state a claim.
`
`It is comprised of 21 hand- and type-written pages and purports to allege claims for “rights of a
`
`citizen,” “rights of a holy ghost,” and “rights of my own mind and thought” against the United
`
`States, Tuolumne County Judge Donald Segerstrom, Governor Gavin Newsom, Vice President
`
`Kamala Harris, Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III, “Ex-Governor” Edward Brown, “The
`
`Federal Judicial Judges,” and Federal Bureau of Investigation, and “U.S. Marshals.” (Doc. 1 at 1–
`
`5.) It consists largely of disjointed and unintelligible allegations. For example, Plaintiff alleges:
`
`Kamala Harris—year 2016—maison program
`Richard Chaney program
`In program claiming to be at the time my husband Kevin Dean Hauck’s sister.
`Brenda Hauck and also in the program was Richard Cheney acting as Brad Hauck
`Kevin’s older brother. Stating that I Shannon R. Powell need to do a time line of
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-00969-JLT-SKO Document 4 Filed 09/10/24 Page 3 of 4
`
`
`
`
`
`my life. As they put me in my live of events more memory would pop out for 3
`day and 2 night [sic]. At the end of last morning they wanted be to eat (to claim
`what was not mine). The called it a games [sic] and wanted me to eat a murder. I
`could not it hurt my chest the ideal of thinking to eat it. I could not –they sayed
`[sic] they would kill my [sic].
`
`(Doc. 1 at 7.) Plaintiff further alleges:
`
`Lloyd J. Austin III—The name alone?
`Edward Brown—Governor of California
`Told me he needed to be Number 1 because he was the Governor. I thought he was
`Willie Brown the one that looked like my Aunt Gayrayle’s long pimp. One in the
`program he sayed [sic], “I’ll end up going to the Death Penalty.” But I understood
`that I would. 2016 years-laser hole PIN size in my brain.
`
`(Id. at 8.) The remaining allegations continue in this vein. (See id. at 9–20.) Plaintiff seeks $1
`
`trillion dollars in damages. (Id. at 21.)
`
`The complaint does not identify any specific causes of action, nor does it contain facts
`
`supporting any cognizable legal claim against any defendant. The undersigned finds that the
`
`complaint consists entirely of fanciful and delusional allegations with no basis in law and no
`
`plausible supporting facts, and therefore should be dismissed. See Sameer v. Khera, No. 1:17-cv-
`
`01748-DAD-EPG, 2018 WL 6338729, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2018), appeal dismissed as frivolous,
`
`No. 19-15011, 2019 WL 7425404 (9th Cir. Aug. 27, 2019) (dismissing the case with prejudice for
`
`lack of subject matter jurisdiction as “the only appropriate response” to “fanciful allegations” in
`
`complaint that “alleges the existence of a vast conspiracy bent on plaintiff's destruction”); Ayres v.
`
`Obama, Civil No. 13–00371 SOM/RLP, 2013 WL 5754953, at *2 (D. Hawai‘i Oct. 22, 2013)
`
`(allegations that FBI implanted biochips in plaintiff and her family to turn them into “a living
`
`vegetable or a New World Order slave” were “so ‘fantastic’ and ‘fanciful’ as to be clearly baseless”);
`
`Bivolarevic v. U.S. CIA, No. C 09-4620 SBA, 2010 WL 890147, at *1–2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 8, 2010)
`
`(court lacked jurisdiction over claims that CIA subjected plaintiff to “voice to skull technology” as
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`a “mind control weapon”).
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`III.
`
`CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
`
`The undersigned concludes that the contents of the complaint are sufficiently unintelligible
`
`as to make it clear that leave to amend in this case would not be fruitful. See Lopez, 203 F.3d at
`
`1126, 1131. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s complaint be
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-00969-JLT-SKO Document 4 Filed 09/10/24 Page 4 of 4
`
`
`
`
`
`dismissed with prejudice.
`
`These findings and recommendations are submitted to the district judge assigned to this
`
`action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and this Court’s Local Rule 304. Within thirty (30)
`
`days of service of these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections with
`
`the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and
`
`Recommendations.” The district judge will review the magistrate judge’s findings and
`
`recommendations pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Plaintiff is advised that failure to file
`
`objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v.
`
`Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014).
`
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`Dated: September 9, 2024
`
`
`
`
`
` /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .
`UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
`
`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
`
`
`
`4
`
`