Ha-rakhamon F Azizi v. United States of America et al

Filing 12

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) - DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS 8 by Judge Christina A. Snyder. In accordance with the foregoing, the Court concludes that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the instant action and that plaintiff's complaint must accordingly be DISMISSED without prejudice. Plaintiff shall have until Monday, December 7, 2015 to file a first amended complaint addressing the deficiencies identified herein. Failure to do so may result in dismissal with prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. (lom)

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

‘O’

Case No.

2:15-cv-07456-CAS(Ex)

Title

HA-RAKHAMON F. AZIZI V. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ET
AL.

Present: The Honorable

Date

November 4, 2015

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
(Dkt. 8, filed September 30, 2015)

The Court finds this motion appropriate for decision without oral argument. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; C.D. Cal. Local Rule 7-15. Accordingly, the hearing date of
November 9, 2015, is vacated, and the matter is hereby taken under submission.
I.

INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND

On June 25, 2015, pro se plaintiff Ha-rakhamon F. Azizi (“plaintiff”) filed the
instant action in the Los Angeles County Superior Court against defendants “The U.S. of
American Government of belonging to Almighty Etc., Dept. of Education, Dept. of
Justice, President of the time, The Senators of CA., The L.A. County Representative,
Yahouda Azizi, Bahram and Jilla Azizi, Bahman J. and Gita Azizi, Farshad and Roya
Azizi, The individual who was stopped on road for investigation and the father of his, as
the father of his was trying to murder me within one month earlier, The dentist who
was the doctor between years 2003-2005 for his conducts of years 2005 and 2011 or
any other time, any other involved individual for indecency or illegal conducts such as
murder.” Dkt. 1, Ex. 1 (Complaint) (errors in original). The Complaint is captioned,
“Illegalities of all types as blasphemies and monetary and property regaining,” id., and is
largely incomprehensible.
On September 23, 2015, defendants United States of America, sued as “the U.S. of
American Government belonging to the Almighty Etc.,” United States President Barack
Obama, sued as “President of the time,” the United States Department of Education, the
United States Department of Justice, and California Senators Barbara Boxer and Diane
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 6

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

‘O’

Case No.

2:15-cv-07456-CAS(Ex)

November 4, 2015

Title

HA-RAKHAMON F. AZIZI V. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ET
AL.

Feinstein (collectively, “Federal Defendants”) removed this action to federal court
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1). Dkt. 1.
On September 30, 2015, the Federal Defendants filed the instant motion to dismiss,
pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a),12(b)(1), 12(b)(6), 12(e), and 12(f), on
the grounds that plaintiff’s complaint fails to establish that the Court has subject matter
jurisdiction and fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Dkt. 8. On
October 13, 2015, plaintiff filed an opposition to the instant motion. Dkt. 10. Having
carefully considered the parties’ arguments, the Court finds and concludes as follows.
II.

DISCUSSION
A.

Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction

In the instant motion, the Federal Defendants state that plaintiff’s action is his
“fourth known case in which he sues the United States of America, the Department of
Justice, the Department of Education and/or California’s United States Senators for
undecipherable claims.” Motion at 1 (citing case numbers 2:09-cv-06677-CAS-CT;
2:10-cv-02108-CAS-E; and 2:12-cv-07861-CAS-E). As the Federal Defendants note, all
three of plaintiff’s previous complaints were similarly incomprehensible and were
accordingly dismissed with prejudice by the undersigned. See 2:09-cv-06677-CAS-CT,
Dkt. 7 (“The court has reviewed the complaint and concludes its claims are wholly
frivolous and cannot be amended to state a federal claim. Therefore, the court lacks
subject matter jurisdiction.”), aff’d CA 09-56634 (9th Cir. Jan 21, 2010) (unpub. order)
(“A review of the record and the opening brief indicates that the questions raised in this
appeal are so insubstantial as not to require further argument . . . Accordingly, we affirm
the district court’s judgment”); 2:10-cv-02108-CAS-E, Dkt. 4 (“The manifest
insubstantiality of the present Complaint deprives this Court of subject matter
jurisdiction. This jurisdictional defect could not be cured by amendment.”);
2:12-cv-07861-CAS-E, Dkt. 23 (dismissing plaintiff’s “largely incomprehensible and
rambling” complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction).
“A paid complaint that is ‘obviously frivolous’ does not confer federal subject
matter jurisdiction, Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 536-37 (1974), and may be
dismissed sua sponte . . . .” Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227 n.6 (9th Cir.1984);
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 6

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

‘O’

Case No.

2:15-cv-07456-CAS(Ex)

November 4, 2015

Title

HA-RAKHAMON F. AZIZI V. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ET
AL.

see also Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 n. 6 (1989) (“A patently insubstantial
complaint may be dismissed, for example, for want of subject-matter jurisdiction under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1)”); Hagans, 415 U.S. at 536-37 (“[F]ederal
courts are without power to entertain claims otherwise within their jurisdiction if they are
‘so attenuated and unsubstantial as to be absolutely devoid of merit,’ ‘wholly
insubstantial,’ ‘obviously frivolous,’ ‘plainly unsubstantial,’ or ‘no longer open to
discussion.’”) (citations omitted)); Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 682-83 (1946) (“[A] suit
may sometimes be dismissed for want of jurisdiction where the alleged claim under the
Constitution or federal statutes clearly appears to be immaterial and made solely for the
purpose of obtaining jurisdiction or where such a claim is wholly insubstantial and
frivolous.”); Franklin v. Oregon Welfare Div., 662 F.2d 1337, 1342-43 (9th Cir.1981).
Dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction may occur sua sponte, Fiedler v. Clark,
714 F.2d 77, 78 (9th Cir. 1983), and 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 internal quotations omitted).
In the instant case, as with plaintiff’s numerous previous actions, see supra, the
Court concludes that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Among other things, plaintiff’s
complaint––which primarily consists of a single seven-page long paragraph––vaguely
alleges various “charges” and “crime(s)” including “murders, adulterous acts of all types
as worshipping, unfaithfulness to Almighty and/or spouses as accordingly, stealing(s),
bearing of false witnessing, coveting(s), hostage taking(s) and any illicit conduct of
blasphemy.” Compl. at 1-2 (errors in original). According to plaintiff, “[t]he U.S.
governmental staffs of belonging to Almighty are being sued due to wrongful conducts
done by their employees as police officers, sheriffs, judge and various parts of above
government as IRS and Social Security, including the abusive use and conducts of the
family of mine, so as not to have chaos and further indecency in near future by help of
Almighty.” Id. at 2 (errors in original). The complaint also includes vague references to
certain “barbaric acts,” “hostage takings,” “bullying,” “obstruction of justice,” and the
“destroying of healthy teeth” by unknown persons. See id. In addition, the complaint
includes references to potential grievances, all associated with certain properties in Los
Angeles, against defendants Bahram, Jilla, Farshad, and Roya Azizi. See Compl. at 6-7.
However, plaintiff’s statements with respect to these properties are also either too vague
or incomprehensible to discern. See, e.g., Compl. at 5 (asserting that certain rents “[have]
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 3 of 6

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

‘O’

Case No.

2:15-cv-07456-CAS(Ex)

November 4, 2015

Title

HA-RAKHAMON F. AZIZI V. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ET
AL.

not been paid to me from the brother and the father ever since 2004,” certain properties
“shall be titled under my name again,” and “certain legal documents should have been
given to me also”). In any event, any allegations as to the non-Federal Defendants––to
the extent to which these allegations can be discerned––are not being adjudicated on the
merits. Franklin v. Oregon Welfare Div., 662 F.2d 1337, 1343 (9th Cir.1981) (“A
dismissal for failure to state a claim requires a judgment on the merits and cannot be
decided before the court has assumed jurisdiction.”). Accordingly, because the Court’s
“dismissal for lack of jurisdiction . . . does not operate as a judgment on the merits,” it
still “allows [the] plaintiff [here] the opportunity to seek relief in the state courts” with
respect to any potential claims against the non-Federal Defendants. Id.
B.

Failure to Comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)

Under Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Rule 8(a)”), a pleading
stating a claim for relief must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing
that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). In order to meet this
standard, a claim for relief must be stated with “brevity, conciseness, and clarity.” See
Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller, 5 Fed. Practice and Procedure § 1215 (3d ed.).
The purpose of Rule 8(a) is to ensure that a complaint “fully sets forth who is being sued,
for what relief, and on what theory, with enough detail to guide discovery.” McHenry v.
Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996).
“In the exercise of their discretion and in order to promote judicial economy, courts
often will use a motion directed at the form of a pleading (or a motion to dismiss under
Rule 12(b)(6)) as a vehicle for considering whether any possible claim for relief [under
Rule 8(a)] exists.” Wright & Miller, 5 Federal Practice & Procedure § 1217, at 256-58
(3d ed. 2004). In McHenry, the Ninth Circuit explained the problems posed by
complaints that fail to meet the standard of Rule 8(a):
Prolix, confusing complaints such as the ones plaintiffs filed in this case
impose unfair burdens on litigants and judges. As a practical matter, the
judge and opposing counsel, in order to perform their responsibilities, cannot
use a complaint such as the one plaintiffs filed, and must prepare outlines to
determine who is being sued for what. Defendants are then put at risk that
their outline differs from the judge’s, that plaintiffs will surprise them with
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 4 of 6

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

‘O’

Case No.

2:15-cv-07456-CAS(Ex)

November 4, 2015

Title

HA-RAKHAMON F. AZIZI V. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ET
AL.
something new at trial which they reasonably did not understand to be in the
case at all, and that res judicata effects of settlement or judgment will be
different than what they reasonably expected. The rights of the defendants
to be free from costly and harassing litigation must be considered.
***
The judge wastes half a day in chambers preparing the short and plain
statement which Rule 8 obligated plaintiffs to submit. He must then manage
the litigation without knowing what claims are made against whom. This
leads to discovery disputes and lengthy trials, prejudicing litigants in other
case[s] who follow the rules, as well as defendants in the case in which the
prolix pleading is filed.

84 F.3d at 1777, 1179-80 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
Although the Court must construe a pro se plaintiff’s pleadings liberally,
McKeever v. Block, 932 F.2d 795, 798 (9th Cir. 1991), plaintiff nonetheless must allege
a minimum factual and legal basis for each claim that is sufficient to give each defendant
fair notice of what plaintiff’s claims are and the grounds upon which they rest. See Brazil
v. United States Dep’t of Navy, 66 F.3d 193, 199 (9th Cir. 1995). Ultimately, plaintiff’s
complaint fails clearly and concisely to provide defendants with sufficient notice of what
plaintiff’s specific claims are, what legal theories plaintiff relies upon, and what relief
plaintiff seeks as to each claim. Furthermore, the Court notes that even if some of
plaintiff’s claims had been adequately plead, “[t]he propriety of dismissal for failure to
comply with Rule 8 does not depend on whether the complaint is wholly without merit . .
. Rule 8(e), requiring each averment of a pleading to be ‘simple, concise, and direct,’
applies to good claims as well as bad, and is a basis for dismissal independent of Rule
12(b)(6).” McHenry, 84 F.3d at 1179 (citing Nevijel v. Northcoast Life Ins. Co., 651
F.2d 671, 673 (9th Cir.1981)).
III.

CONCLUSION

In accordance with the foregoing, the Court concludes that it lacks subject matter
jurisdiction to adjudicate the instant action and that plaintiff’s complaint must
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 5 of 6

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

‘O’

Case No.

2:15-cv-07456-CAS(Ex)

November 4, 2015

Title

HA-RAKHAMON F. AZIZI V. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ET
AL.

accordingly be DISMISSED without prejudice. Plaintiff shall have until Monday,
December 7, 2015 to file a first amended complaint addressing the deficiencies identified
herein. Failure to do so may result in dismissal with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
00
Initials of Preparer

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

:

00

CMJ

Page 6 of 6