Brumbaugh v. Roberts

Filing 13

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending that the Complaint in this 1 Action be Dismissed without Leave to Amend signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 01/15/2014. Referred to Judge Ishii; Objections to F&R due by 2/18/2014.(Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11

JERRY DWAYNE BRUMBAUGH,

12
13
14
15

Case No. 1:13-cv-01776-AWI-GSA

Plaintiff,

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
RECOMMENDING THAT THE
COMPLAINT IN THIS ACTION BE
DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO
AMEND

v.
JOHN ROBERTS,
Defendant.

OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN
THIRTY (30) DAYS

16
17
18

INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff Jerry Dwayne Brumbaugh (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and in forma

19 pauperis, filed the complaint in this action on November 4, 2013. (Doc. 1). For the reasons
20 detailed below, the Court recommends that the complaint be dismissed without leave to amend.
21
22

SCREENING STANDARDS
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the Court conducts a preliminary review of Plaintiff’s

23
complaint to assess its legal sufficiency. The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof
24
25

if it determines that the action is “frivolous or malicious;” “fails to state a claim upon which

26 relief may be granted;” or “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such
27 relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). If the Court finds a complaint to be deficient, the Court may
28

1

1 grant leave to amend to the extent the deficiencies are curable by amendment. Lopez v. Smith,
2 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000). The Court notes that the pleadings of pro se plaintiffs
3

“must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Hebbe v.

4
Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010); see also Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520–21, 92
5
6

S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972) (per curiam). Accordingly, pro se pleadings are construed

7 liberally, with plaintiffs afforded the benefit of any doubt. Hebbe, 627 F.3d at 342.
8

(i)

Failure to State a Claim

9

As stated above, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court must dismiss a case if the

10 Court determines that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. In
11
12

evaluating whether a complaint states a claim, the Court applies Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
8(a). Under Rule 8(a), a complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim

13
14

showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Rule 8(a) further

15 encompasses a “plausibility standard” for claims pled in a complaint, as explicated by the
16 Supreme Court cases Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) and Ashcroft v.
17 Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009). These cases hold that “the pleading standard Rule 8 announces …
18
19

demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Iqbal, 556
U.S. at 678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). Rather, “a complaint must contain sufficient

20
21
22

factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id.
(quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570).

“[A] complaint [that] pleads facts that are ‘merely

23 consistent with’ a defendant’s liability . . . ‘stops short of the line between possibility and
24 plausibility of entitlement to relief.’” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557). In assessing the
25 plausibility of a claim to relief, well-pleaded factual content is accepted as true, while legal
26
27

conclusions couched as factual allegations or “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of
action, supported by mere conclusory statements,” are not entitled to an assumption of truth. Id.

28

2

1 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).
2
3
4

(ii)

Frivolous Claims

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court must also dismiss a case if the Court
determines that the complaint is frivolous. A complaint “is frivolous where it lacks an arguable

5
6

basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104

7 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989). “[The] term ‘frivolous,’ when applied to the complaint, embraces not only
8 the inarguable legal conclusion, but also the fanciful factual allegation.” Id.; see also Martin v.
9 Sias, 88 F.3d 774, 775 (9th Cir. 1996). Courts thus have not only “the authority to dismiss a
10 claim based on an indisputably meritless legal theory, but also the unusual power to pierce the
11

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

12
clearly baseless.” Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327.
13
14

In sum, a claim must be dismissed as frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis either in law

15 or in fact. This includes claims based on legal conclusions that are untenable (e.g., claims
16 against defendants who are immune from suit or claims of infringement of a legal interest which
17 clearly does not exist), as well as claims premised on baseless factual allegations. See Neitzke,
18
19

490 U.S. at 327–28.
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT

20

Plaintiff names “Chief Justice John Roberts” as the defendant in this action

21

(“Defendant”). (Doc. 1). Plaintiff’s complaint appears to largely consist of excerpts from

22
23
24

various court opinions and documents such as the Federalist Papers. Plaintiff appears to be
challenging driving license requirements as a general principle; however, his specific legal
claims and factual allegations, as well as the remedies he seeks, are unclear to the point of being

25

indecipherable. For example, Plaintiff alleges, inter alia, that “Defendant has allowed ‘licenses’

26

to violate the ‘common right to drive.’” (Doc. 1 at 3). Subsequently, Plaintiff states that he has

27

“filed under the ‘original right of self defense’” as described in the Federalist Papers. (Doc. 1 at

28

3

1 3-4). Plaintiff next explains that the “usurpation” he is challenging in this case “is that the
2 Supreme Court has allowed the remedy to sue to be trespassed by rulings.” (Doc. 1 at 4).
3

Plaintiff summarizes his claims against Defendant as follows:

4

1. The defendant has by unlawful rulings, in violation of the
compact, harmed plaintiff by trespassing the civil liberty of
plaintiff, and Due process of law, and Preamble.
2. On or about July 10th, 2010, plaintiff was unlawfully arrested
in Jackson Mississippi, county of Rankin, arrest was on basis of
private plates, in lieu of “license plates”, and having marijuana.
3. Violation of compact; to wit; unlawful violation of constitution
by “Slaughterhouse Cases”, and “Baldwin v. Montana”; where the
judge ruled that the two P and I clauses are the same yet
unlawfully stated the rights in the clause as civil rights, when in
fact the rights in the clause are civil liberties. [Sic.].

5
6
7
8
9
10 (Doc. 1 at 9).
11

Plaintiff lists the “relief lawfully demanded” in this matter as follows:

12

1. Restoration of law that protects civil liberties for all. By ruling
the reach of clauses that trespass the civil liberties of plaintiff,
are void and null, and are severable from such trespassing
reach.
2. Restoration of Article III power. By ruling the judicial power
is only to be used in Article III …
3. Minimum amount for case from Defendant.
4. Ruling that the civil liberties of Black Americans, are as in
Corfield v. Coryell, see case file Brumbaugh v. Roberts.
5. Ruling that Plaintiff shall be awarded the first C.D.R.;
Commercial Driving Regulatory; for working in his profession
as truck driver.
6. Ruling that the ‘licenses’ currently in supposed valid use, be
declared to be used as regulatory i.d.’s until regulatory i.d.’s be
in use. [Sic].

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

(Doc. 1 at 14).
ANALYSIS
The legal and factual allegations in Plaintiff’s complaint do not plausibly set forth an

23 entitlement to relief. See Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007); Ashcroft v.
24 Iqbal, 566 U.S.662 (2009). Consequently, Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim on which
25
26

relief may be granted. Id. Further, Plaintiff’s claims are legally frivolous as they lack even an
arguable basis in law. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 325. The Court further finds that Plaintiff’s claims

27
28

cannot be cured by the allegation of additional facts. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130

4

1 (9th Cir. 2000). Accordingly, the Court recommends that Plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed
2 without leave to amend.
3

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

4

The Court finds that Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a cognizable claim and that the

5
6

defects in the complaint cannot be cured by amendment.

Accordingly, the Court

7 RECOMMENDS that this action be DISMISSED without leave to amend.
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the Honorable Anthony W. Ishii,

8

9 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and this Court’s Local Rule 304. Plaintiff may file written
10 objections with this Court within thirty (30) days of service of these findings and
11
12

recommendations. Such a document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's
Findings and Recommendations." The district judge will review the magistrate judge’s findings

13
14

and recommendations pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Plaintiff is advised that failure to

15 file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the district judge’s order.
16 Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
17
18
19
20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22
Dated:

23

January 15, 2014

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

DEAC_Signature-END:

24
6i0kij8d
25
26
27
28

5