Hawkins et al v. Wesley et al

Filing 2

ORDER DISMISSING CASE as Frivolous and Closing Matter, signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 4/7/17. CASE CLOSED. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4
5

MELVIN LOWELL HAWKINS, JR.,

6

Plaintiff

7
8

CASE NO. 1:17-CV-0470 AWI EPG
ORDER DISMISSING CASE AS
FRIVOLOUS AND CLOSING MATTER

v.
DAVID WESLEY, et al.,

(Doc. No. 1)

9

Defendants

10
11
12

On April 4, 2017, Plaintiff filed this matter that purports to be a civil rights lawsuit.

13

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and is a prisoner at the California Substance Abuse Treatment

14

Facility in Corcoran, California. Plaintiff captions his complaint as “MELVIN LOWELL

15

HAWKINS JR, registered trade name/business entity, and Hawkins, Melvin Lowell, registered

16

trade name holder and real party in interest.”

17

David Wesley’s husband, Jackie Lacey, and Jackie Lacey’s husband. An exhibit to the Complaint

18

includes of a certificate of service that names David Wesley as “dba presiding judge,” and names

19

Jackie Lacey as “dba prosecutor.” An address of 210 West Temple St., Los Angeles, CA is listed.

20

The address 210 West Temple St. is the location of the Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice

21

Center in Los Angeles County, CA.1 David Wesley is a judge on the Los Angeles Superior

22

Court.2 Jackie Lacey is the District Attorney of Los Angeles County.3 For the reasons that

23

follow, Plaintiff’s complaint will be dismissed as frivolous and this case will be closed.

Plaintiff names as Defendants David Wesley,

24
25
26
27
28

1

The Court takes judicial notice under Fed. R. Evid. 201 of the following website:
http://www.lacourt.org/courthouse/info/CCB
2

The Court takes judicial notice under Fed. R. Evid. 201 of the following website:
https://www.lacourt.org/judicialofficers/ui/SearchResult.aspx.
3

The Court takes judicial notice under Fed. R. Evid. 201 of the following website: http://da.co.la.ca.us/about/meetthe-da.

1

Factual Background

2

The Complaint is not a model of clarity. Plaintiff purports to grant his name (Hawkins,

3

Melvin Lowell) and his registered trade name “MELVIN LOWELL HAWKINS JR” to the court

4

for the future return of this interest. Plaintiff also makes claim to his free will and right of

5

dominion over his own body, blood, DNA, all properties, and all hereditaments. Plaintiff states

6

that he is a “private, non-statutory, non-citizen, de jure American in the de jure original

7

jurisdiction, not a ‘person,’ not a ‘citizen,’ not named in an U.S. or state ‘code,’ and not a ‘person’

8

as defined in the Trading With The Enemy Act as modified by the Emergency Banking Relief Act

9

. . . .” Plaintiff states that David Wesley is being sued in his personal capacity because he was

10

“operating in his ministerial capacity, enforcing statutes . . . .” Plaintiff states that this case began

11

as an administrative remedy for civil rights violations, but “has now been reduced to a breach of

12

contract as all defendants admitted, via their own willful and voluntary default on the

13

administrative process, that they are guilty and they owe the amount requested by the plaintiffs,

14

and they failed to object or state any claim to immunity.” Plaintiff states that Defendants refused

15

to respond to various documents that he served upon them, and that he has “established ‘judicial

16

estoppel’ against Defendants, as evidence by the Certificate of Dishonor/Administrative Judgment

17

Nihil Dicit, testified to by Eileen Raye, a public minister . . . .” The documents served on

18

Defendants claim to be an “Affidavit of Obligation [which] is a commercial instrument . . . .”

19

Plaintiff request $136,840,000.00 in damages.

20

Legal Framework

21

In order to state a claim, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as

22

true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Iqbal v. Aschcroft, 556 U.S. 662, 678

23

(2009). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the

24

court draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id.

25

Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. A complaint may be dismissed for failure to state a claim where there is

26

the lack of a cognizable legal theory or the absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable

27

legal theory. Conservation Force v. Salazar, 646 F.3d 1240, 1242 (9th Cir. 2011); Johnson v.

28

Riverside Healthcare Sys., 534 F.3d 1116, 1121 (9th Cir. 2008). In reviewing a complaint, courts
2

1

are not required “to accept as true allegations that are merely conclusory, unwarranted deductions

2

of fact, or unreasonable inferences.” Wilson v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 668 F.3d 1136, 1145 n. 4

3

(9th Cir. 2012); Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir. 2001). An action

4

is “frivolous” if it has no arguable basis in fact or law; the term embraces both inarguable legal

5

conclusions and fanciful factual allegations. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989);

6

Barnard, 635 F. App’x at 389. A court may sua sponte dismiss a complaint for failure to state a

7

claim, without providing notice or an opportunity to respond, where the plaintiff cannot possibly

8

win relief. Barnard v. United States Gov’t, 635 F. App’x 389 (9th Cir. 2016); Sparling v.

9

Hoffman Constr. Co., 864 F.2d 635, 638 (9th Cir. 1988); Omar v. Sea-Land Service, Inc., 813

10

F.2d 986, 991 (9th Cir. 1987); Herrejon v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, 980 F.Supp.2d 1186,

11

1194 (E.D. Cal. 2013); Young v. Hawaii, 911 F.Supp.2d 972, 995 (D. Haw. 2012).

12

Discussion

13

It is apparent that Plaintiff is attempting to use non-applicable law to either obtain his

14

release from custody, or obtain money from the judge and prosecutor of his criminal conviction.

15

The nature of the Complaint indicates that Judge Wesley would be entitled to absolute

16

judicial immunity against Plaintiff’s claims. See Moore v. Brewster, 96 F.3d 1240, 1243-44 (9th

17

Cir. 1996). Because of the nature of judicial immunity, amendment with respect to Judges Wesley

18

would be futile. Martinez v. Newport Beach City, 125 F.3d 777, 785 (9th Cir. 1997).

19

The nature of the Complaint also indicates that District Attorney Lacey is entitled to

20

absolute prosecutorial immunity. See Van de Kamp v. Goldstein, 555 U.S. 335, 342-43 (2009).

21

Because of the nature of prosecutorial immunity, amendment with respect to District Attorney

22

Lacey would be futile. See Smith v. Delaware, 624 Fed. Appx. 788, 790-91 (3d Cir. 2015); Lopez

23

v. County of L.A., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1339, *21 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 5, 2016); Douglas v. Miller,

24

864 F.Supp.2d 1205, 1221 (W.D. Ok. 2012).
Moreover, no plausible cause of action is alleged in the Complaint.4 The allegations and

25
26

apparent theories for Plaintiffs’ claims are specious and fanciful. Plaintiff attempted to create

27
28

4

The Court notes that Plaintiff cites 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1985, but no factual allegations support plausible claims
under these statutes.

3

1

unilateral liability by sending what purports to be a commercial paper, specifically an “affidavit of

2

obligation for claim upon public hazard bonds demand for release,” to a sitting superior court

3

judge and the district attorney of Los Angeles. Plaintiff’s complaint is reminiscent of the

4

discredited theories of the “sovereign citizen” movement. Cf. Koshkaryan v. Kuhl, 2017 U.S.

5

Dist. LEXIS 49711, *5 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2017); Leiter v. Kenney, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS

6

172482 (D. Minn. Oct. 26, 2016); Smithson v. York Cnty. Ct. of Common Pleas, 2016 U.S. Dist.

7

LEXIS 102674 (M.D. Pa. Aug. 3, 2016); Payne v. Kilda, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14968 (E.D.

8

Mich. Jan. 6, 2016); Alexio v. Obama, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 168035 (D. Haw. Dec. 16, 2015);

9

Nunez v. D.T.C., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138514, *6 (D. S.C. Aug. 30, 2013). Because the

10

allegations and bases for the Complaint’s theories are frivolous, amendment would be futile.
Plaintiffs’ claims are specious and frivolous, and no plausible claims are alleged. See

11
12

Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 325; Wilson, 668 F.3d 1136, 1145 n. 4. Because amendment would be futile

13

and Plaintiff cannot possibly win relief, the Court will dismiss this case as frivolous and for failure

14

to state a claim. See Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 325; Barnard, 635 F. App’x at 389; Sparling, 864 F.2d

15

at 638; Omar, 813 F.2d at 991; Herrejon, 980 F.Supp.2d at 1194; Koshkaryan, 2017 U.S. Dist.

16

LEXIS 49711 at *1-*5 (dismissing as frivolous a complaint that is essentially identical to

17

Plaintiff’s complaint).

18
19

ORDER

20

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

21

1.

This case is DISMISSED as frivolous and for failure to state a claim; and

22

2.

The Clerk shall CLOSE this case.

23
24
25

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 7, 2017
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

26
27
28
4