Clervrain et al v. Brown et al

Filing 17

ORDER OF DISMISSAL: This action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. All pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT. Signed by Judge Joshua M. Kindred on 8/1/22. (JLH, COURT STAFF)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
MANETIONY CLERVRAIN, et al.
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 1:22-cv-00004-JMK

ANN BROWN, et al.
Defendants.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL
On March 31, 2022, self-represented litigant Manetiony Clervrain, a former
federal prisoner, previously incarcerated at the Moore Detention Center in
Okmulgee, Oklahoma, 1 filed a civil rights action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown
Names Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) and
42 U.S.C. § 1983, along with an Application to Proceed in District Court without
Prepaying Fees or Costs. 2 The Complaint names forty-two co-plaintiffs and sixtyeight defendants. 3 At Docket 5, Mr. Clervrain submits a Notice of Appearance of
Counsel, which asserts he is admitted or authorized to practice before the Court
and an exhibit which grants him power of attorney for Plaintiff Alex Felix.
Additionally, Mr. Clervrain filed thirteen motions, each of which reference selfClervrain v. Lee, No. 3:20-CV-548-TAV-DCP, 2021 WL 141793, at 1 (E.D. Tenn.
Jan. 14, 2021).
1

2

Docket 1 & 6.

3

Docket 1.

created statutes or legal constructs such as, “Massive Issues [‘Right Aggravated’]
Treatment Act,” “the Answer Act,” “the Ant(s) Community Act,” the “Settlement
Agreement(s) Against Secretive Criminals,” “the National Regulatory Treaties Act,”
“the Ant(s) Freedom Act,” and “the Ant(s) Reform Multiplicity Act.” 4
The Court takes judicial notice that Mr. Clervrain has an extensive history of
filing frivolous lawsuits in numerous other districts. 5 He appears to have filed 197
cases with varying United States District Courts between October 2012 to June
2022. 6 All of the complaints appear to include “nothing more than unintelligible
statements and allegations that are difficult to follow, frivolous, or otherwise clearly
devoid of merit.” 7
This Complaint, like the others Mr. Clervrain has filed, “while perfectly
legible, is entirely nonsensical.” 8 The Complaint alleges that after Mr. Clervrain

4

Dockets 2–4, 7–16.

Judicial notice is the “court’s acceptance, for purposes of convenience and without
requiring a party’s proof, of a well-known and indisputable fact; the court’s power to accept
such a fact.” BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY (11th ed. 2019); see also Headwaters Inc. v. U.S.
Forest Service, 399 F.3d 1047, 1051 n.3 (9th Cir. 2005) (“Materials from a proceeding in
another tribunal are appropriate for judicial notice.”) (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted); see also Fed. R. Evid. 201.
5

In Re: Manetirony Clervrain, Case No. 1:22-mc-00018-TRM, Docket 1 (E.D. Tenn.
June 23, 2022) (Injunction Order).

6

7

Clervrain v. Bevin, No. 19-5232, Doc. 13-2 at 2 (6th Cir. Jul. 18, 2019).

v. Lee, No. 3:20-CV-548-TAV-DCP, 2021 WL 141793, at 1 (E.D. Tenn.
Jan. 14, 2021).

8 Clervrain

1:22-cv-00004-JMK, Clervrain et al. v. Brown et al.
Order of Dismissal
Page 2 of 9

was released from prison, Defendants engaged in an “extensive conspiracy
involv[ing] the violation [of] the Banking industry,” in order to prevent him from
opening a bank account or obtaining credit cards. 9

He further alleges

discrimination based on national origin though without supporting facts.
Mr. Clervrain’s narrative includes winding discussions of the deference standards
for judicial review of federal agencies, the Federal Tort Claims Act, subject matter
jurisdiction, in addition to his own self-created statutes. 10

He claims that

Defendants have failed to invade the Republic of Haiti and have committed crimes
against humanity in Haiti. 11 He incoherently references an “Ant Library Act” and
rails against the “unreasonable Classification by the Giants.” 12
For relief, Mr. Clervrain alleges damages in excess of $100,000,000,000 in
addition to $100,000,000 per defendant involved in “the conspiracy.” 13

9

Docket 1 at 5.

10

Docket 1 at 5–6.

11

Docket 1 at 9.

12

Docket 1 at 6.

13

Docket 1 at 12.

1:22-cv-00004-JMK, Clervrain et al. v. Brown et al.
Order of Dismissal
Page 3 of 9

SCREENING REQUIREMENT
Federal law requires a court to conduct an initial screening of a civil
complaint filed by a self-represented litigant seeking IFP status. 14

In this

screening, a court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that
the action:
(i)

is frivolous or malicious;

(ii)

fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or

(iii)

seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune
from such relief. 15

To determine whether a complaint states a valid claim for relief, courts
consider whether the complaint contains sufficient factual matter that, if accepted
as true, “state[s] a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” 16 In conducting its
review, a court must liberally construe a self-represented plaintiff’s pleading and
give the plaintiff the benefit of the doubt. 17 Before a court may dismiss any portion

See, e.g., Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126 n.7 (9th Cir. 2000) (clarifying that the
relevant law, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) “applies to all [IFP] complaints,” and not just those filed
by prisoners).
14

15

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). In making this determination, a court may consider “materials that
are submitted with and attached to the Complaint.” United States v. Corinthian Colleges,
655 F.3d 984, 999 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing Lee v. L.A., 250 F.3d 668, 688 (9th Cir. 2001)).
16

See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Bretz v. Kelman, 773 F.2d
1026, 1027 n.1 (9th Cir. 1985) (en banc)).

17

1:22-cv-00004-JMK, Clervrain et al. v. Brown et al.
Order of Dismissal
Page 4 of 9

of a complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, the
court must provide the plaintiff with a statement of the deficiencies in the complaint
and an opportunity to amend or otherwise address the problems, unless to do so
would be futile. 18 Futility exists when “the allegation of other facts consistent with
the challenged pleading could not possibly cure the deficiency[.]” 19
DISCUSSION
Mr. Clervrain fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and
pleads a frivolous civil action. The Complaint fails to state a claim pursuant to
Rule 8 of Federal Civil Procedure. Plaintiff’s pleadings are conclusory assertions
that lack sufficient plausible factual details for this Court to adequately draw an
inference of liability. Furthermore, the action lacks an arguable basis in either law
or fact. For the reasons provided below, amendment is futile, and, therefore, the
Court will not grant leave to amend.
I.

Failure to State a Claim
Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure instructs that a complaint

must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
[complainant] is entitled to relief[.]” A complaint should set out each claim for relief

See Gordon v. City of Oakland, 627 F.3d 1092, 1094 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Albrecht v.
Lund, 845 F.2d 193, 195 (9th Cir. 1988)).
18

See Schreiber Distributing Co. v. Serv-Well Furniture Co., 806 F.2d 1393, 1401 (9th
Cir. 1986).
19

1:22-cv-00004-JMK, Clervrain et al. v. Brown et al.
Order of Dismissal
Page 5 of 9

separately. Each claim should identify: (1) the specific harm that Plaintiff is
alleging has occurred to him; (2) when that harm occurred; (3) where that harm
was caused; and (4) who he is alleging caused that specific harm to him.
Factual allegations may not be speculative but must plead “factual content
that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable
for the misconduct alleged.” 20 While a complaint need not contain every precise,
factual detail, “unadorned, the defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation[s]” are
insufficient to state a claim. 21 A complaint is insufficiently plead if it offers “naked
assertions devoid of further factual enhancement.” 22 A complaint that offers legal
conclusions or a simple recitation of the elements of a cause of action does not
meet the required pleading standard.
As the Seventh Circuit noted, “Judges are not like pigs, hunting for truffles
buried in briefs.” 23 The Complaint sets forth many pages of sprawling narrative.
However, the Complaint is devoid of the essential explanation of who, what, where,
and how Defendants caused Mr. Clervrain harm.

Moreover, the Complaint

provides a mix of irrelevant discussion on deference standards, Congressional

20

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).

21

Id.

22

Id. (internal citations and quotations omitted).

23

U.S. v. Dunkel, 927 F.2d 955, 965 (7th Cir. 1991).

1:22-cv-00004-JMK, Clervrain et al. v. Brown et al.
Order of Dismissal
Page 6 of 9

intent, and various federal statutes with self-created “law” that does not exist in
American jurisprudence. Even taken as a whole and construed liberally, the Court
cannot decipher a sufficient, plausible theory or even singular facts that would
support a legal claim—let alone a civil rights claim under federal law. Accordingly,
Mr. Clervrain fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, and the
Complaint must be dismissed.
II.

Frivolousness
In accordance with federal law, a court must dismiss a case “at any time if

the court determines that the action or appeal is frivolous or malicious.” 24 The term
frivolous, or frivolous as a matter of law, is a legal term. It means that a case or
complaint “lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” 25

When a court

evaluates for whether a complaint is frivolous, it must “pierce the veil of the
complaint’s factual allegations to determine whether they are fanciful, fantastic, or
delusional.” 26

Additionally, a complaint may be frivolous if it merely repeats

pending or previously litigated claims.” 27

24

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1); 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c)(1).

25

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989).

26

Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327-28; see also Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992).

27

Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 n.2 (9th Cir. 1995).

1:22-cv-00004-JMK, Clervrain et al. v. Brown et al.
Order of Dismissal
Page 7 of 9

As discussed above, the Complaint fails to state a claim, but moreover, the
Complaint lacks an arguable basis in law or fact.

The Complaint is fanciful,

fantastic and delusional. Mr. Clervrain references non-existent laws about ants
and giants, rails against a fictional invasion of Haiti and alleges vast conspiracies
involving banks and the “education system.” 28 Though this Complaint appears to
be the first of its kind that Mr. Clervrain has filed in a federal district, a search of
federal dockets reveals he has filed similarly incoherent complaints in numerous
districts in Tennessee, New Mexico, Wyoming, and others. 29

As such,

Mr. Clervrain’s action is frivolous. Therefore, the action must be dismissed with
prejudice for frivolousness.
III.

Futility of Amendment
This action lacks any plausible legal or factual claim and is part of a long line

of similarly incomprehensible civil lawsuits. Mr. Clervrain has previously litigated
similar claims of violations of similar self-created statutes in several jurisdictions,
making them frivolous.

28

“A district court may deny leave to amend when

Docket 1 at 7.

Re: Manetirony Clervrain, Case No. 1:22-mc-00018-TRM, Docket 1 (E.D. Tenn.
June 23, 2022) (Injunction Order); Clervrain v. Rodriguez, Case No. 22-CV-110-SWS,
Docket 15 (D. Wyo. May 18, 2022) (Order of Dismissal); Clervrain v. United States, Case
No. 1:22-cv-00342-MV-LF, Docket 6 (D.N.M. June 16, 2022) (Order of Dismissal).
29 In

1:22-cv-00004-JMK, Clervrain et al. v. Brown et al.
Order of Dismissal
Page 8 of 9

amendment would be futile.” 30 No other facts could remedy the deficiencies of this
action. 31 Therefore, amendment is futile.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1. This action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for failure to state a claim,
frivolousness, and the futility of amendment.
2. All pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT.
3. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter a Final Judgment in this case.
DATED at Anchorage, Alaska, this 1st day of August, 2022.
/s/ Joshua M. Kindred
JOSHUA M. KINDRED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

30

Hartmann v. California Dep't of Corr. & Rehab., 707 F.3d 1114, 1130 (9th Cir. 2013).

31

Supra note 19.

1:22-cv-00004-JMK, Clervrain et al. v. Brown et al.
Order of Dismissal
Page 9 of 9