Charles v. United States of America

Filing 4

ORDER - IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Complaint, doc. 1 , is DISMISSED with prejudice as frivolous. The Clerk is kindly directed to enter judgment in favor of Defendant, against Plaintiff, terminate this action, and provide a copy of this Order to the judges assigned to CV-13-1443-PHX-NVW, CV-13-1476-SPL, CV-13-1477- PHX-LOA, and CV-13-1478-PHX-DGC. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs, doc. 2 , is DENIED as moot. (See document for further details). Signed by Senior Judge Stephen M McNamee on 7/29/13. (LAD)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Robin Michael Charles,
Plaintiff,

10
11

vs.

12
United States of America,
13
Defendant.
14

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. CV 13-1369-PHX-MHB
ORDER

15
Pending before the Court are pro se Plaintiff’s Complaint and Application to Proceed
16
in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs. (Docs. 1, 2.) Although this case is
17
assigned to Magistrate Judge Michelle H. Burns, this Order is issued by the undersigned
18
Senior United States District Judge pursuant to General Order 11-03, dated February 15,
19
2011, which authorizes a dismissal order despite the absence of full consent to magistrate
20
judge jurisdiction.
21
In the motion to proceed without paying a filing fee or the costs related to service of
22
process, Plaintiff presents verified evidence establishing he is unable to pay the filing fee and
23
other costs associated with this case. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), a district court
24
shall dismiss an in forma pauperis action if the court determines that:
25
(A) the allegation of poverty is untrue; or
26
(B) the action or appeal –
27
28

(i) is frivolous or malicious;
(ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or

1

(iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.

2

“While much of § 1915 outlines how prisoners can file proceedings in forma pauperis, §

3

1915(e) applies to all in forma pauperis proceedings, not just those filed by prisoners.” Long

4

v. Maricopa Cmty. College Dist., 2012 WL 588965, at *1 (D. Ariz. Feb. 22, 2012) (citing

5

Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126 n. 7 (9th Cir. 2000) (“[S]ection 1915(e) applies to all

6

in forma pauperis complaints[.]”); see also Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845 (9th Cir. 2001)

7

(“[T]he provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) are not limited to prisoners.”) (citation

8

omitted). Additionally, Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires a

9

complaint to contain a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction,

10

a short and plain statement of the claim showing the pleader is entitled to relief, and a

11

demand for the relief sought.

12

A complaint is frivolous if it is based on a nonexistent legal interest or delusional

13

factual scenario. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327-30 (1989); Muhammad v. Phoenix

14

Police Dept., 2008 WL 447523, at *1(D. Ariz. Feb. 14, 2008). Moreover, a “finding of

15

factual frivolousness is appropriate when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational

16

or the wholly incredible, whether or not there are judicially noticeable facts available to

17

contradict them.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992) (dismissal also appropriate

18

when the facts alleged are “clearly baseless,” “fanciful,” “fantastic,” and/or “delusional.”);

19

see also Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1228 (9th Cir. 1984). A complaint is

20

“frivolous” within the meaning of § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) where it lacks an arguable basis in law

21

or fact. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 325. A finding of factual frivolousness is appropriate when the

22

facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible, whether or not there

23

are judicially noticeable facts available to contradict them, id., and legal frivolousness

24

justifies dismissal where a complaint is based on “an indisputably meritless legal theory[.]”

25

Id. at 327. “To this end, the statute accords judges not only the authority to dismiss a claim

26

based on an indisputably meritless legal theory, but also the unusual power to pierce the veil

27

of the complaint’s factual allegations and dismiss those claims whose factual contentions are

28

clearly baseless.” Id. at 328.
-2-

1

Here, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s Complaint is frivolous. The sparse, one-page

2

document asserts “Abuse Of Power” as the Complaint’s only cause of action. (Doc. 1.) The

3

Complaint alleges that the “U.S. Government ... used me as a human guinea pig to test audio

4

hypnosis, memory manipulation, mind reading, and they toyed with my body, soul & spirit

5

in an attempt to ‘see what they can do’ with technology.” (Doc. 1.) As a demand, the

6

Complaint states, “I want it to stop and I don’t want them to be allowed to do it to anyone

7

else.” (Doc. 1.) It alleges no facts or other supporting information. See, e.g., God v. Arizona

8

State Univ., 2007 WL 1539324, at *1 (D. Ariz. May 24, 2007) (pro se plaintiff, God, claimed

9

the defendant university was infringing his copyright by using his “autobiography,” namely,

10

“Bible,” without paying plaintiff royalties was dismissed with prejudice as “both fanciful and

11

factually frivolous”) (citing Denton, 504 U.S. at 33); Yacoub v. United States, 2007 WL

12

2745386 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 20, 2007) (pro se complaint dismissed as frivolous which

13

alleged defendants “used toxic chemicals, telepathy, color coding, astral bodies,

14

electromagnetic waves, and other methods to control his mind and bodily functions.”); King

15

v. United States, 2006 WL 1375090 (W.D. Wash. May 18, 2006) (dismissing as frivolous pro

16

se plaintiff’s complaint alleging that he was a victim of “mind torture via satellite

17

technology” operated by the United States). Because the Complaint clearly fails to allege

18

an arguable legal or factual basis for recovery, the Complaint will be dismissed as frivolous.

19

The District Court’s docket reflects Plaintiff has also filed similarly frivolous and

20

delusional pro se complaints against the United States Surgeon General, President Barack

21

Hussein Obama, Jr., and the Federal Communications Commission, alleging a general claim

22

of abuse of power. See CV-13-1443-PHX-NVW,1 CV-13-1476-SPL, CV-13-1477-PHX-

23

LOA, and CV-13-1478-PHX-DGC.

24
25
26
27
28

1

The Hon. Neil V. Wake, United States District Judge, has already dismissed
Plaintiff’s Complaint in the case assigned to him as it failed to allege any factual allegations
and comply with Rule 8(a)(1) and (2), but granted Plaintiff leave to file an amended
complaint by August 5, 2013. (Doc. 3 in CV-13-1443-PHX-NVW)
-3-

1

The Court finds no reasonable factual or legal basis to grant Plaintiff leave to amend

2

the Complaint. A district court should not grant leave to amend if it determines that a

3

pleading cannot possibly be cured by the allegation of other facts. See Lopez v. Smith, 203

4

F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000). Leave to amend is not proper in the presence of any of the

5

following four factors: bad faith, undue delay, prejudice to the opposing party, and/or futility.

6

Griggs v. Pace American Group, Inc., 170 F.3d 877, 880 (9th Cir. 1999) (citing DCD

7

Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 186 (9th Cir. 1987)). Here, because the Complaint

8

fails to allege any facts or valid legal theory upon which to base a claim, there is essentially

9

nothing to amend. Thus, the Court finds the Complaint cannot be cured by amendment.

10

The Ninth Circuit recognizes “the inherent power of federal courts to regulate the

11

activities of abusive litigants by imposing carefully tailored restrictions under appropriate

12

circumstances.” De Long v. Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144, 1146 (9th Cir. 1990). “[F]lagrant

13

abuse of the judicial process cannot be tolerated because it enables one person to preempt the

14

use of judicial time that properly could be used to consider the meritorious claims of other

15

litigants.” Moski v. Evergreen Dynasty Corp., 500 F.3d 1047, 1057 (9th Cir.2007) (quoting

16

DeLong, 912 F.3d at 1148) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Procup v. Strickland,

17

792 F.2d 1069, 1073 (11th Cir. 1986) (“Federal courts have both the inherent power and the

18

constitutional obligation to protect their jurisdiction from conduct which impairs their ability

19

to carry out Article III functions.”). Nevertheless, every appellate court that has considered

20

the question has held that before a trial court may sua sponte enter a pre-filing order, due

21

process requires that it afford the vexatious litigant notice and an opportunity to be heard.

22

See De Long, 912 F.2d at 1147; Baum v. Blue Moon Ventures, LLC, 513 F.3d 181, 189 (5th

23

Cir. 2008); Cromer v. Kraft Foods, Inc., 390 F.3d 812, 819 (4th Cir. 2004); Cok v. Family

24

Ct. of Rhode Island, 985 F.2d 32, 35–36 (1st Cir. 1993); Tripati v. Beaman, 878 F.2d 351,

25

354 (10th Cir. 1989); In re Oliver, 682 F.2d 443, 446 (3d Cir. 1982).

26

This Court finds Plaintiff is vexatious litigant. A vexatious litigant Order shall issue,

27

if Plaintiff continues to file frivolous and delusional claims. This Court believes that there

28

is an adequate record to support such an Order. Plaintiff is cautioned to take care in all future
-4-

1

filings to avoid frivolous claims and the abusive use of this District Court. Failure to comply

2

with this directive may result in an injunction against Plaintiff to prohibit future filings in the

3

United States District Court for the District of Arizona. See Stone v. Maricopa County, 2008

4

WL 4446697, at *7 (D. Ariz. Sept.8, 2008) (imposing vexatious litigant order based on

5

plaintiff’s “history of filing and re-filing the same claims against the same defendants

6

involving the same two fact patterns”).

7

Accordingly,

8

IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Complaint, doc. 1, is

9

DISMISSED with prejudice as frivolous. The Clerk is kindly directed to enter judgment

10

in favor of Defendant, against Plaintiff, terminate this action, and provide a copy of this

11

Order to the judges assigned to CV-13-1443-PHX-NVW, CV-13-1476-SPL, CV-13-1477-

12

PHX-LOA, and CV-13-1478-PHX-DGC.

13
14
15

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in District
Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs, doc. 2, is DENIED as moot.
DATED this 29th day of July, 2013.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-5-