Ha-rakhamon Azizi v. The U.S. of America etc. et al

Filing 23

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge Christina A. Snyder: The Court hereby GRANTS Defendants' Motion to Dismiss 10 with prejudice. The manifest insubstantiality of the present complaint deprives this Court of subject matter jurisdiction. This jurisdictional defect could not be cured by amendment. Accordingly, the Court hereby DISMISSES this action with prejudice. (MD JS-6. Case Terminated) Court Reporter: Not Present. (gk)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

JS-6

Case No.

CV 12-7861-CAS (Ex)

Title

HA-RAKHAMON AZIZI V. THE U.S. OF AMERICA, ET AL.

Present: The Honorable

Date

December 5, 2012

CHRISTINA A. SNYDER

Catherine Jeang
Deputy Clerk

Not Present
Court Reporter / Recorder

N/A
Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants

Not present

Not present

Proceedings:

(In Chambers:) DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS (filed
October 30, 2012)
ORDER DISMISSING CASE FOR LACK OF SUBJECT
MATTER JURISDICTION

On August 6, 2012, plaintiff Ha-rakhamon Azizi filed the instant action in Los
Angeles County Superior Court against defendants The U.S. of America etc.; Dept. of
Justice; Dept. of Educ.; Senators Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer; Representative
Henry A. Waxman; and Farshad Azizi, Yahouda Azizi, David Azizi, and Michael Azizi.
Dkt. No. 1. Defendant United States Department of Justice removed the action to this
Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1) on September 12, 2012.1 Plaintiff’s complaint,
like those complaints this Court previously dismissed, is largely incomprehensible and
wholly insubstantial.
On September 19, 2012, defendants Bahman Azizi, Bahram Azizi, Farshad Azizi,
and Yahouda Azizi filed a motion to dismiss on the basis of res judicata. Dkt. No. 10.
Plaintiff previously filed a complaint in Los Angeles Superior Court for the same claims
against these same moving defendants in October 2010, allegedly arising out of the same
property dispute; the Superior Court granted judgment to defendants in May 2012. See

1

This is plaintiff’s fourth action against Azizi v. U.S. Dept. Of Educ., et al. CV 986864-WDK, aff’d, 194 F.3d 1316 (9th Cir. Sept. 16, 1999) (unpub. memorandum); Azizi
v. Amer. Gov’t, et al., CV 09-6677-CAS, aff’d CA 09-56634 (9th Cir. Jan 21, 2010)
(unpub. order); Azizi v. Americ. Gov’t, et al., CV 10-2108-CAS. See Notice of Related
Cases Filed by Defendant United States Dept. of Justice, Exs. 1–5.
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Date

JS-6

Case No.

CV 12-7861-CAS (Ex)

December 5, 2012

Title

HA-RAKHAMON AZIZI V. THE U.S. OF AMERICA, ET AL.

Defs.’ Request for Judicial Notice (“RJN”) Ex. B.2 Plaintiff failed to oppose this motion
in any intelligible fashion. See Dkt. No. 13. Having reviewed the parties’ submissions,
the Court hereby GRANTS defendants’ motion with prejudice. Plaintiff’s pleading could
not be cured to avoid the res judicata effect of the prior state judgment against him.
In addition, plaintiff’s complaint is largely incomprehensible and rambling. He
alleges various charges of “stealing and/or adulterous and/or murderous acts” by the
“U.S. American government of belonging to Almighty”; improper “hostage taking of this
American government”; “idol worship”; and further allegations that appear to involve a
speeding ticket he may have received. Compl. at 7–9. Plaintiff’s requested relief, if it is
fact such a request, is also wholly unintelligible. Compl. at 15 (requesting, inter alia, that
“the judge of case of year 05–07 to be removed to another part of this government of
belonging to Almighty”).
A “complaint that is ‘obviously frivolous’ does not confer subject matter
jurisdiction. . . .” Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.3d 1221, 1227 n. 6 (9th Cir. 1984) (citing
Hagans v. Levine, 415 U.S. 528, 536–37 (1974)); see also Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S.
319, 327 n. 6 (1989); Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 681–82 (1946); Franklin v. Oregon
Welfare Div., 662 F.2d 1337, 1342–43 (9th Cir. 1981). Dismissal for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction is proper when the federal claim is “so insubstantial, implausible,
foreclosed by prior decisions of this Court, or otherwise completely devoid of merit as
not to involve a federal controversy.” Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S.
83, 89 (1998) (citations and quotations omitted). Dismissal for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction may occur sua sponte. Fiedler v. Clark, 714 F.2d 77, 78 (9th Cir. 1983).
The manifest insubstantiality of the present complaint deprives this Court of
subject matter jurisdiction. This jurisdictional defect could not be cured by amendment.
Accordingly, the Court hereby DISMISSES this action with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

00:00
CMJ

2

The Court finds it appropriate to take judicial notice of documents filed in the
state court proceedings. Fed. Rule of Evid. 201(b); Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d
668, 689 (9th Cir. 2001) (“under Fed. R. Evid. 201, a court may take judicial notice of
matters of public record”).
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 2