(PS) Clemmons v. Callejar, 2:25-cv-01438

Plaintiff Trehana Clemmons filed a pro se complaint against fourteen employees of the Department of Family and Adult Services.
Plaintiff's allegations concern alleged violations of various federal statutes, U.S. constitutional amendments, and treaties.
The complaint references large sums of money and various purported legal authorities but is largely unintelligible and lacks coherent factual support.
The plaintiff was granted permission to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(a)(1) and (2).
The case was screened pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) to determine whether it states a cognizable claim or is frivolous.
The Magistrate Judge recommended dismissal of the complaint without leave to amend because the allegations are frivolous and fail to state a claim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the complaint stated a cognizable legal claim	Clemmons argued his inalienable rights were violated and invoked various treaties and statutes.	Not directly stated (likely argued no viable claim).	Complaint is frivolous and fails to state a claim.
Sufficiency of factual allegations	Clemmons asserted vague grievances and legal theories without specifics.	N/A	Allegations are unintelligible and lack necessary facts.
Applicability of cited authorities	Cited numerous statutes and treaties (e.g., Treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek, Public Law 97-280).	N/A	Cited authorities do not create actionable claims.
Leave to amend	Implicitly requested by filing the complaint as a pro se litigant.	N/A	Leave to amend denied as complaint cannot be cured.

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard: legal conclusions insufficient without supporting facts)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (standard for facial plausibility in complaints)
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (definition of frivolous claims under §1915)
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (liberal standard for construing pro se complaints)