(PC) Caetano v. Fidelity Advisor Leveraged Company, et al.

Filing 9

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS That (1) Defendants' Motion to Dismiss be Granted; (2) This Case be Dismissed, With Prejudice; And (3) a Pre-Filing Order be Entered Against Plaintiff 5 re 1 ; ORDER DIRECTING Clerk of Court to Assign a District Judge signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 3/5/2025. Referred to Judge Sherriff. Objections to F&R due within 30 days. (Deputy Clerk JPX)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

NATHANIEL DWAYNE CAETANO,

11

Plaintiff,

12

v.

13

FIDELITY ADVISOR LEVERAGED
COMPANY, et al.,

14

Defendants.

15

Case No. 1:24-cv-01584-EPG (PC)
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
THAT (1) DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO
DISMISS BE GRANTED; (2) THIS CASE BE
DISMISSED, WITH PREJUDICE; AND (3) A
PRE-FILING ORDER BE ENTERED
AGAINST PLAINTIFF
(ECF No. 5)
ORDER DIRECTING THE CLERK OF
COURT TO ASSIGN A DISTRICT JUDGE

16
17

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

18

Plaintiff Nathaniel Dwayne Caetano is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil

19
20

rights action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff brings claims of fraud,

21

“intentional torts,” and property damage against Fidelity Advisor Leveraged Company,1 Fidelity

22

Life Small Cap Fund, Depository Trust Company Corporation, and Fidelity Brokerage Services

23

LLC (“Fidelity or “Defendants”). (Id. at 22-37). Plaintiff’s complaint is very lengthy—almost

24

300 pages including exhibits—with very long sentences and illegible handwriting. Although not

25

entirely clear, Plaintiff appears to allege that he has a right to certain bonds held by Defendants.

26
27
28

In its motion to dismiss, Fidelity say that its proper name is “Defendant FIDELITY BROKERAGE
SERVICES LLC” and that it was erroneously sued as “Fidelity Advisor Leveraged Company” and
“Fidelity Life Small Cap Fund.” (ECF No. 5 at 9).
1

1

On December 31, 2024, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint for

1
2

failure to state a claim. (ECF No. 5). Plaintiff did not file an opposition.

3
4

Defendants’ motion to dismiss is now before the Court. For the reasons stated below, the
undersigned recommends that the motion be granted.

5

I.

BACKGROUND
A. Plaintiff’s Complaint

6
7

Plaintiff originally filed this action in in the Kings County Superior Court of the State of

8

California on February 8, 2023. (ECF No. 1 at 17). On December 24, 2024, Defendants removed

9

this action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. (ECF No. 1).

10

Plaintiff’s complaint totals approximately 271 pages. (ECF No. 1 at 22-293). He selects

11

boxes for causes of action: “Fraud”, “Intentional Tort” and “Other (specify)” (Id. at 17, 21).2 As

12

to the “Other” claim, Plaintiff seems to plead that Defendants are in possession of his registered

13

security bond with the CUSIP #3158-5382. (Id. at 21). He says that he is seeking actual damages

14

no less than $437,000,000.00 and punitive damages of $2.8 billion. (Id.). Plaintiff claims the

15

bond “is [his] truthful legal inheritance that has been held in Trust since the Bible was written and

16

prior if you want to get truthful.” (Id. at 27).

17

Plaintiff’s complaint contains the following allegations:

18

Plaintiff is filing a Writ of Attachment #122380-NDC-1266 in conjunction with
this Complaint with Fee waiver for the Kings County Sheriff to take possession of
My Property, Registered Security, [redacted] and Bond CUSIP #315805382 as the
“Levying Officer” unless the defendants turn over control, Ownership and Legal
Title to My Registered Security, [redacted] and Bond CUSIP #315805382. Turn
your attention to the Memorandum of Points and Authorities where Me, Attorney
of Record, Attorney-In-Fact in this Complaint, Nathaniel Dwayne Caetano am
pursuant to CA-Uniform Commercial Code 39012 (73), Secured Party Creditor
to/of/for NATHANIEL DWAYNE CAETANO, Debtor because of Private
Security Agreement #122380-NDC-1 and its One trillion U.S. dollar
($1,000,000,000,000.00 USD) Internation Commercial Lien on page 17 of the
PSA, both Notarized on 21 June 21. Because of the usurping, failed
insurrectionists of the “CDCR” and its agents or “principal” who’ve stolen
Plaintiff’s Money Order, then the CA-SOS and County of Kings illegally refusing
to file Plaintiff’s perfectly legal, legit Fictitious Business Name Statement

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
2

28

At one point in the complaint, Plaintiff lists that he is bringing three fraud claims and three intentional
tort claims. (ECF No. 1 at 17).

2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

#122380-NDC-63 (Kings County Recorder/Assessor/Clerk) nor TM-100
Trademark Registration of NATHANIEL DWAYNE CAETANO, #122380-NDC15065 preventing Plaintiff from filing, or Me from filing My Uniform Commercial
Code – 1 Financing Statement as Creditor- Secured Party on Debtor Plaintiff
NATHANIEL DWAYNE CAETANO Me is having to have them filed by Court
Order in case no. 22cv-0415 where CA-Secretary of State and County of Kings
and CDCR are defendants. That being said pursuant to CA-CCP’s 482.050
Secretary of CA-UCC 9102 (74) the PSA #122380-NDC-1 and its trillion dollar
lien makes Me Caetano Secured Party of CAETANO and thus legal standing to
collect on this 15 USC Non-Negotiable Instrument that pursuant to United Nations
Convention on International Trade Law (UNITRAL) international Treaty on
International Bills of Exchange this IS a legal tender instrument, Dated 8
December 1988.
These “past” roadblocks are because the true Aristocracy of this planet are
extraterrestrials, aliens, and the “geography” Me was indoctrinated with as a child
isn’t the true geography of Our, yes Our because Me is Officially Prasadat planet
is Kings County, this Courts “District” is Iraq where My father Leonard Mathew
Caetano was Saddam Hussein and Me, the natural person am the World Trade
CENTER – Twin Towers of 1 Kings 7:21; the two Pillars of Jachin and Boaz (See
Banknote #00529619 that is page two of Legal Instrument #41 with nine Esoteric
deciphered truths explained on its face) and that Hanford California is also
Hanford Washington where nuclear Plutonium is created (sovereign real births)
and is Washington District of Columbia, Columbia being two Pillars, hi-column,
and the last four digits of My Vital Record 1721 representing Me being Lord God
incarnate, Rightful Heir to this planet and being thee Creator Am Prasadat, thus
Sovereign of Iraq and Owner of the PROPHET corporation DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA also known as the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
(Id. at 25-26). Plaintiff’s complaint contains numerous similar allegations. (See generally id.).
Plaintiff’s complaint also contains cryptic, handwritten attempts to decipher documents, including
Plaintiff’s birth certificate. (Id. at 41).

20
B. Motion to Dismiss
21
22

Defendants move for the Court to dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint entirely, without leave to
amend. (ECF No. 5). Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim because it

23
is void of facts, is unintelligible, and presents sovereign citizen ideology. (Id. at 16). Defendants
24

also argue that Plaintiff’s complaint failed to name an entity capable of being sued, and instead,

25
named portfolio funds offered by Fidelity. (Id. at 18). Defendants argue in the alternative that any
26
claim is subject to arbitration based on the Account Application and the Customer Agreement,
27
which contain pre-dispute arbitration clauses in which Plaintiff agreed to arbitrate. (Id. at 19).
28
3

1

Defendants also argue that a pre-filing order is appropriate because Plaintiff is a vexatious

2

litigant. (Id. at 21).

3

Defendants served the motion to dismiss on Plaintiff at Kern Valley State Prison, where

4

Plaintiff is presently housed. (ECF No. 5 at 28). Plaintiff’s deadline to file an opposition to the

5

motion was January 14, 2025, but he did not do so.

6

II.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, a complaint must contain “a short and plain

7
8

LEGAL STANDARD

statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12 permits a party to file a motion to dismiss a claim for

9
10

“failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). “A Rule

11

12(b)(6) motion tests the legal sufficiency of a claim.” Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d 729, 732 (9th

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

Cir. 2001). In considering a motion to dismiss, the Court must accept all allegations of material
fact in the complaint as true. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93-94 (2007). “[T]he court must
construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, taking all [of the plaintiff’s]
allegations as true and drawing all reasonable inferences from the complaint in [the plaintiff’s]
favor.” Doe v. United States, 419 F.3d 1058, 1062 (9th Cir. 2005). “However, “conclusory
allegations of law and unwarranted inferences are insufficient to defeat a motion to dismiss.”
Adams v. Johnson, 355 F.3d 1179, 1183 (9th Cir. 2004). In addition, pro se pleadings “must be
held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627
F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding that pro se complaints should continue to be liberally
construed after Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009)).

21

Detailed factual allegations are not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a

22

cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” See Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

23

556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to

24

‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,

25

550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are

26

not. Id.; see also Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556-57.

27

\\\

28

\\\
4

1

III.

2

ANALYSIS
A. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss
Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s complaint should be dismissed for failure to state a claim

3
4

because (1) “Plaintiff’s causes of action are incoherent and entirely devoid of law or fact”; and

5

because (2) “Plaintiff’s allegations, explanations, and exhibits are all demonstrative of the fact

6

that Plaintiff’s claims are rooted in the ‘Redemptionist’ theory of the sovereign citizen ideology.”

7

(ECF No. 5 at 16).3
Plaintiff did not file an opposition. Local Rule 230(c) provides that “[a] failure to file a

8
9
10

timely opposition may also be construed by the Court as a non-opposition to the motion.” Eastern
District of California Local Rule 230(c). Additionally, the Ninth Circuit has determined that a
Court may dismiss an action for a plaintiff’s failure to oppose a motion to dismiss, where the

11
applicable local rule determines that failure to oppose a motion will be deemed a waiver of
12
13
14

opposition. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 52 (9th Cir. 1995). (dismissal upheld even where
plaintiff contended he did not receive motion to dismiss, where plaintiff had adequate notice,
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b), and time to file opposition); see also Wystrach v. Chiachurski,

15

267 F.App’x 6060, 609 (9th Cir. 2008) (explaining that the holding in Ghazali “refused to extend

16

to motions to dismiss the requirement that a district court examine the merits of

17

an unopposed motion for summary judgment before summarily granting it pursuant to a

18

local rule”).

19
20

Here, Plaintiff has failed to oppose to the motion to dismiss. This reason alone is enough
for the undersigned to recommend dismissal of the case.
Nevertheless, a review of the complaint on the merits shows that dismissal is appropriate.

21
22

As Defendants explain, Plaintiff is alleging that because certain notes have similar numbers to

23

some identification of Plaintiff, he has an ownership interest over those notes. (ECF No. 5 at 9).

24

However, this is frivolous, and Plaintiff fails to allege any legitimate basis for owning any

25

securities held by Defendant. (See generally ECF No. 1).

26
27
28

Defendants also argue that (1) “Plaintiff’s Complaint should be dismissed because Plaintiff failed to
name an entity capable of being sued, and instead, named portfolio funds offered by Fidelity” and (2)
should the complaint not be dismissed, the “the dispute must be compelled to arbitration.” (ECF No. 5 at
18, 19). Because the Court agrees that the Complaint should be dismissed on other grounds, the Court
need not address these two arguments.
3

5

Defendants claim that many of the allegations are patently frivolous, such as Plaintiff’s

1
2
3
4
5
6

theory of damages for his “intentional tort” claim:
Should defendants fail to turn over full complete ownership of title to registered
security, . . . the actual security, its account and lifetime ledgers and Bond CUSIP
#315805382, the Actual Bond, and its entire Accounting Ledgers at the Writ of
Attachment Hearing or prior maximum punitive damages will be sought that at 10x
puts the Jury Award starting at $437,000,000.00 USD (Four hundred and thirtyseven million USD or more, 20x, 30x.) Turn, them over, or else…
(See ECF No. 5 at 11 (citing See Compl. at 15)).

7
8
9
10
11

Similarly, Defendants argue that the following portion of Plaintiff’s complaint regarding
damages4 is also frivolous:
Of Prophet Yahweh Satan-President Nathaniel Dwayne Caetano, Iraq/USA/U.S.A.,
mental pain and suffering, libel and defamation of character. The law states 72 times
actual damages is NOT excessive, therefore, the 43.7 million USD x72 equals over
$2.5 billion USD that will be sought should defendants stall of delay turning over
my property and thereby freeing me from COOR custody!

12

15

(Id.).5 Defendants also quote where Plaintiff explains how the bond relates back to him:
104 stands for J.D.= God Lord. 803 stands for 888 the Ahiye Asher Ahiye 543-345
moses PROPHET and CHRIST and the 4302 is the 71 days of Brahma. And my
vital record #104-80-343027-1600-1721 is literally the deed to this entire f[*]cking
planet.

16

(ECF No. 5 at 12 (citing Compl. at 17)).

13
14

17

“A complaint is frivolous only if it contains ‘inarguable legal conclusions’ or

18

‘fanciful factual allegations.’” McKeever v. Block, 932 F.2d 795, 798 (9th Cir. 1991) (quoting

19
20
21
22

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989)). “[A] finding of factual frivolousness is
appropriate when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible,
whether or not there are judicially noticeable facts available to contradict them.” Denton v.
Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992). “[T]he frivolousness determination is a discretionary one”
for the court. Id.

23
In his complaint, Plaintiff self-appoints himself as a prophet, claims to be God, and refers
24

to himself as the President (sometimes spelled Prasadat). (See, e.g., ECF No. 1 at 26, 27, 17).

25
26
27
28

More specifically, this portion of the Complaint relates to Plaintiff’s alleged damages for property
damage, loss of use of property, loss of earning capacity, and “other” claim.
5
The Court notes that Yahweh is the English spelling for the name of God (“YHWH”) found in the book
of Exodus. Yahweh, Encyclopedia Britannica, https://www.britannica.com/topic/Yahweh (last visited
March 4, 2025). By referring to himself with this name, Plaintiff appears to be claiming he is God.
4

6

1

Courts have determined that complaints stating all three of these types of allegations are

2

frivolous. See, e.g., Mallon v. Padova, 806 F. Supp. 1189, 1191-92 (E.D. Pa. 1992) (finding that

3

plaintiff’s allegations that he was God and the President of the United States were fantastic and

4

delusional and finding the complaint frivolous); Dekoven v. Bell, 140 F. Supp. 2d 748, 761 (E.D.

5

Mich. 2001). (“[C]ourts have found allegations that a plaintiff is a deity to be fanciful, fantastic,

6
7
8
9

and delusional.”); Sayyed v. Six Churches, 705 F. App'x 770, 771 (10th Cir. 2017) (affirming the
dismissal as frivolous the claims of a self-proclaimed prophet).
Additionally, Plaintiff’s complaint is frivolous for making sovereign-citizen assertions.
(See generally ECF No. 1). The predominant belief of the sovereign-citizen movement is that,
even though the adherents physically reside in the United States, the state and federal

10
governments lack constitutional legitimacy and therefore have no authority to regulate their
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

behavior. See United States v. Gougher, 835 Fed. App’x 231, 233 (9th Cir. 2020).
In his complaint, Plaintiff makes numerous statements that espouse sovereign citizen
ideology, such as:
104 stands for J.D.= God Lord. 803 stands for 888 the Ahiye Asher Ahiye 543-345
moses PROPHET and CHRIST and the 4302 is the 71 days of Brahma. And my
vital record #104-80-343027-1600-1721 is literally the deed to this entire f[*]cking
planet.
(ECF No. 1 at 23). Although not clear, it appears that Plaintiff is claiming that he owns the entire

20

planet. Similarly, Plaintiff also states:
These “past” roadblocks are because the true Aristocracy of this planet are
extraterrestrials, aliens, and the “geography” Me was indoctrinated with as a child
isn’t the true geography of Our, yes Our because Me is Officially Prasadat [sic]
planet is Kings County. . .

21

(Id. at 26). It appears that Plaintiff is claiming that he is the sovereign of Kings County.

18
19

25

Elsewhere in the complaint, Plaintiff asserts:
[N]o “Judge can practice law from the bench and the writ of attachment requires
Affidavits sworn under Oath under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State
of California where Plaintiff is giving the “society” the chance to keep these
Truths secret by Admiting [sic] Plaintiff Nathaniel Dwayne Caetano is President
and Legal Lawful Owner of the District of Columbia – UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA . . .

26

(Id. at 28). These types of arguments are persistent throughout Plaintiff’s complaint. (See

27

generally id.). The Court construes such as sovereign citizen arguments.

22
23
24

28

In addressing sovereign citizen ideology, the Ninth Circuit has held that:
7

1
2
3
4
5
6

[Defendant’s sovereign citizen] contentions are frivolous and the courts ordinarily
reject similar contentions without extended argument. See, e.g., United States v.
Masat, 948 F.2d 923, 934 (5th Cir. 1991) (rejecting as frivolous defendant's
contention that the district court lacked personal jurisdiction because defendant
was a “freeman”); United States v. Gerads, 999 F.2d 1255, 1256 (8th Cir. 1993)
(rejecting as frivolous defendants’ contention that they were “not citizens of the
United States, but rather 'Free Citizens of the Republic of Minnesota’ . .
.”); Kahler v. United States, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17299, *3 (D. Mont. 1995)
(rejecting as specious defendants’ argument “that they are not ‘individuals’ or
citizens of the United States because they are Montana citizens.”).

7
8
9
10

United States v. Ward, No. 98-30191, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 9255, *5-6 (9th Cir. Apr. 14,
1999). Other federal courts have “flatly rejected ‘sovereign citizen’ and similar theories as
‘frivolous, irrational [and] unintelligible.’” Bendeck, Civ. No. 17-00180 JMS-RLP, 2017
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68168, at *8 (D. Haw. May 4, 2027); see also Hunt v. Or., No. 2:22-cv-

11
00273-CL, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 215411, at *8 (D. Or. Nov. 30, 2022) (dismissing the
12
13
14
15

plaintiff’s complaint for lack of diversity jurisdiction and noting that “[c]laims based on
sovereign citizen arguments and ideology have been universally rejected as frivolous and
will remain rejected here”); Bey v. Geiser, No. EDCV19844JGBKKX, 2019 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 240665, at *3 (C.D. Cal. May 21, 2019) (“Courts across the country have uniformly

16

rejected such ‘sovereign citizen’ theories as frivolous, irrational, or unintelligible.”)

17

(collecting cases); Alexio v. Obama, Civ. No. 15-00209 HG-KSC, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS

18

124485, at *5 (D. Haw. Sept. 15, 2015) (noting uniform rejection of sovereign citizen

19

theories).

20

Moreover, other courts have specifically rejected Plaintiff’s previous sovereign citizen

21

arguments as frivolous. See Caetano v. Internal Revenue Serv., No. 1:22-CV-00837-JLT-SAB,

22

2023 WL 3319158, at *4 (E.D. Cal. May 9, 2023), report and recommendation adopted, 2023

23

WL 4087634 (E.D. Cal. June 20, 2023) (“Even while Plaintiff does not expressly state that he is a

24

‘sovereign citizen,’ the Court finds Plaintiff’s allegations, explanations, and exhibits are all

25
26
27
28

demonstrative of the fact that Plaintiff’s claims are entirely rooted in the ‘Redemptionist’ theory
of the sovereign citizen ideology. The ‘Redemptionist’ theory is another frivolous legal theory
that has been rejected by countless federal courts.”); Caetano v. Kings Cnty. Sheriff, No. 1:22CV-0261 JLT HBK, 2022 WL 1271344, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 28, 2022), appeal dismissed, No.
8

1

22-16067, 2022 WL 18358075 (9th Cir. Aug. 17, 2022) (“To the extent Plaintiff's allegations are

2

based on a sovereign citizen ideology—in referring to his body as a ‘Sovereign’ and a vessel—

3

courts uniformly and summarily have rejected arguments premised on such ideology as frivolous

4

and meritless.”).

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

Because Plaintiff’s complaint in this case contains numerous sovereign citizen type
assertions, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s complaint is frivolous on this basis as well.
Furthermore, other Courts facing similar allegations by Plaintiff in other lawsuits have
dismissed his complaints for being frivolous. Notably, in Caetano v. Depository Trust Company,
Plaintiff made similar attempts to argue that he was the rightful owner of the same secured bond
(CUSIP No. 315805382). As stated by the adopted Findings and Recommendations in that case,
Plaintiff believes that he is able to create his own money by signing promissory
notes. (See FAC at 10.) Plaintiff appears to allege that “Registered Security 104 803
4302” (the “Security”) is a promissory note that he created and owns. (See FAC at
4; Doc. 1 at 5.) According to Plaintiff, as “Bond CUSIP No. 315805382” (the
“Bond”) is “backed/based upon the Security,” Plaintiff is thus the rightful owner of
the Bond and its alleged $43,700,000.00 value, not Defendants.
Federal courts, however, have rejected this theory that a promissory note is money
as entirely frivolous.
Caetano v. Depository Trust Company, Case No. 1:22-cv-679, ECF No. 11 at *4 (E.D. Cal. Aug.
2, 2022). That Court ultimately recommended dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint, and the
recommendation was later adopted by the district judge. (Id. at *6; Caetano v. Depository Trust
Company, Case No. 1:22-cv-679, ECF No. 17 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 30, 2022). In this case, Plaintiff

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

attempts to make the same claim that he is entitled to the very same bond based on similar
frivolous theories. (ECF No. 1 at 21, 25).
Likewise, Plaintiff made substantially similar assertations in Caetano v. Internal Revenue
Services:
Plaintiff points to various data notated on a copy of his birth certificate appended to
the SAC, explaining that they represent various biblical and other references, and
asserts his birth certificate constitutes “the Deed and Title to this planet AND the
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA making Me
CEO and Prasadat of Iraq and U.S.A.” (ECF No. 9 at 43.) Plaintiff also refers to
himself at various points in the SAC as the “Sole Acting President of the United
States of America” (id. at 9, 12, 18), the “attorney-in-fact, California General” (id.
at 18), a “Secured Party Creditor” over himself (id. at 18), and the “real, living,
natural Man Prophet Nathaniel Dwayne Caetano” (id. at 24).

28
9

1

Caetano v. Internal Revenue Service et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-837, ECF No. 11 at *6 (E.D. Cal.

2

May 9, 2023). The district judge in that case ultimately agreed that such allegations warranted

3

dismissal and adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation to close the case. Caetano v.

4

Internal Revenue Service et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-837, ECF No. 13 (E.D. Cal. June 20, 2023).

5

Because Plaintiff is making substantially similar frivolous claims in this case, and

6
7
8

claiming ownership of the same bond, dismissal is also warranted. Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d
1103, 1105 n.2 (9th Cir. 1995) (A complaint may be dismissed as frivolous if it “merely repeats
pending or previously litigated claims.”).
Accordingly, the undersigned recommends dismissal of the complaint for the reasons

9

stated above.6
10
Moreover, the Court determines that granting leave to amend would be futile because of
11
12
13

the frivolous nature of Plaintiff’s allegations. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 n.8 (9th Cir.
2000) (If a case is classified as frivolous, “there is, by definition, no merit to the underlying action
and so no reason to grant leave to amend.”).

14

B. Vexatious Litigant

15

Defendants also request that the Court declare Plaintiff a vexatious litigant and subject

16

him to pre-filing requirements. (ECF No. 5 at 21). Plaintiff did not oppose this request.

17

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

18

activities of abusive litigants by imposing carefully tailored restrictions under appropriate

19

circumstances.” De Long v. Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144, 1146 (9th Cir. 1990). These bar orders

20

“may enjoin the litigant from filing further actions or papers unless he or she first meets certain

21

requirements, such as obtaining leave of the court or filing declarations that support the merits of

22

the case.” Weissman v. Quail Lodge, Inc., 179 F.3d 1194, 1197 (9th Cir. 1999).
A request to declare a party a vexatious litigant entails consideration of four factors: (1)

23
24
25
26
27
28

the party must have had adequate notice and an opportunity to oppose the order; (2) there must be
an adequate record for review, including a list of all cases and motions that led the court to
conclude that a vexatious litigant order was necessary; (3) the court must make a substantive
6

Because the undersigned determines that dismissal of the complaint is appropriate for the reasons stated,
the Court shall not address Defendants’ arguments that they are improperly named or that Plaintiff ‘s
complaint is subject to arbitration.

10

1

finding as to the frivolous or harassing nature of the litigant’s actions; and (4) the order must be

2

narrowly tailored to fit the particular problem involved. De Long, 912 F.2d at 1147-48. “[P]re-

3

filing orders are an extreme remedy that should rarely be used . . . because such sanctions can

4

tread on a litigant’s due process right of access to the courts.” Id. “Nevertheless, ‘[f]lagrant

5

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

6
7
8
9

of judicial time that properly could be used to consider the meritorious claims of other
litigants.’” Molski v. Evergreen Dynasty Corp., 500 F.3d 1047, 1057 (9th Cir. 2007)
(quoting DeLong, 912 F.2d at 1148).
Moreover, litigiousness alone is insufficient to support a finding of vexatiousness.
See Moy v. United States, 906 F.2d 467, 470 (9th Cir. 1990) (the plaintiff’s claims must not only

10
be numerous, but also be patently without merit). The focus is on the number of suits that
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

were frivolous or harassing in nature rather than on the number of suits that were simply
adversely decided. See De Long, 912 F.2d at 1147-48. The Ninth Circuit has defined vexatious
litigation as “without reasonable or probable cause or excuse, harassing, or annoying.” Microsoft
Corp. v. Motorola, Inc., 696 F.3d 872, 886 (9th Cir. 2012).
1. Adequate Notice and Opportunity to be Heard
Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s opportunity to oppose the motion satisfies the first factor
under De Long. (ECF No. 5 at 22).

18

The first factor requires that the litigant be given “notice and an opportunity to be heard

19

before the district court entered the pre-filing order.” Molski, 500 F.3d at 1058. In Molski, the

20

Ninth Circuit opined that “Molski had fair notice of the possibility that he might be declared a

21

vexatious litigant and have a pre-filing order entered against him because the district court’s order

22

was prompted by a motion filed by the defendants and served on Molski's counsel.” (Id.).

23

Moreover, no hearing is required so long as the party potentially subject to a pre-filing order has

24

the opportunity to fully brief the issue. Pac. Harbor Capital, Inc. v. Carnival Air Lines, Inc., 210

25
26
27

F.3d 1112, 1118 (9th Cir. 2000) (holding, in a case involving sanctions levied against an attorney,
that “an opportunity to be heard does not require an oral or evidentiary hearing on the issue,” but
instead that “[t]he opportunity to brief the issue fully satisfies due process requirements”).
Here, Defendants gave Plaintiff notice of the possibility he might be declared a vexatious

28
11

1

litigant by filing the motion and serving it on Plaintiff. Plaintiff had the opportunity to oppose

2

Defendants’ Motion but elected not to file an opposition. Accordingly, the first De Long factor is

3

satisfied.

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

2. Adequate Record for Review
Defendants argue that the second factor is satisfied because Plaintiff has brought at least
sixteen prior lawsuits over the past five years, and in each of those lawsuits that reached a final
determination, the case was decided adversely against Plaintiff. (ECF No. 5 at 22, 24).
“An adequate record for review should include a listing of all the cases and motions that
led the district court to conclude that a vexatious litigant order was needed.” De Long, 912 F.2d
at 1147. “At the least, the record needs to show, in some manner, that the litigant’s activities
were numerous or abusive.” (Id.).
Defendant submits the following cases as evidence that there is adequate record for
review. Defendant also asks the Court to take judicial notice of these cases:

13
14
15
16
17
18

•
•
•
•

19
20

•

21
22

•

23
24
25
26

•
•

Caetano, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California; Case No. 5:23-cv1116 (May 4, 2023 Order dismissing Civil Rights claim as frivolous)
Caetano v. Board of State and Community Corrections et al., U.S. District Court,
Eastern District of California; Case No. 1:22-cv-687 (May 26, 2023 Order
dismissing claim without leave to amend for failure to state a cognizable claim)
Caetano v. California Department of Corrections, U.S. District Court, Eastern
District of California; Case No. 1:23-cv-1503 (Dec. 21. 2023 Order denying in
forma pauperis application pursuant to the “three-strikes bar.”)
Caetano v. California Dept. of Public Health, et al., Superior Court of California,
Kings County; Case No. 22-CV-0415 (Docket showing Plaintiff’s claim was
dismissed with prejudice following a sustained demur)
Caetano v. David Robinson, et al.; Superior Court of California, Kings County;
Case No. 23-CU-0234 (Docket showing that Plaintiff’s claim is still pending,
waiting on a hearing for a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings)
Caetano v. Denise Alena Caetano, Superior Court of California, Kings County;
Case No. 23-CU-0261 (Docket showing that Plaintiff’s claim was dismissed after
failing to show cause)
Caetano v. Depository Trust Company, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of
California; Case No. 1:22-cv-679 (Sept. 29, 2022 Order dismissing claim without
leave to amend)
Caetano v. Internal Revenue Service et al., U.S. District Court, Eastern District of
California; Case No. 1:22-cv-837 (June 19, 2023 Order dismissing Plaintiff’s
Second Amended Complaint with prejudice)

27
28
12

•

1
2

•

3
4

•

5
6

•

7
•

8
9
10

•

11
12

•

13

Caetano v. Internal Revenue, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California;
Case No. 2:23-cv-1521 (Nov. 28, 2023 Order denying in forma pauperis
application pursuant to the “three-strikes bar.”)
Caetano v. Jeffrey E. Lewis, Superior Court of California, Kings County; Case No.
19C-0256 (Docket showing the case was dismissed and Plaintiff filed an appeal,
which was also dismissed)
Caetano v. Kings County Sheriff, et al., U.S. District Court, Eastern District of
California; Case No. 1:22-cv-261 (April 27, 2022 Order dismissing lawsuit
without leave to amend)
Caetano v. Kings County Sheriff, et al., U.S. District Court, Eastern District of
California; Case No. 1:22-cv-222 (March 18, 2022 Order dismissing case for
failure to state a claim)
Caetano v. Securities and Exchange Commission, U.S. District Court, Eastern
District of California; Case No. 2:23-cv-1329 (Jan. 9 2024 Order denying in forma
pauperis application pursuant to the “three-strikes bar” and July 27, 2024 Order
dismissing lawsuit)
Caetano vs. Theresa Cisneros, Superior Court of California, Kings County; Case
No. 22-C-0262 (Docket showing the case was dismissed following Plaintiff’s
inability to show cause as to why the action should not be dismissed)
Caetano v. United States of America, et al. U.S. District Court, Eastern District of
California; Case No. 1:23-cv-1648 (Nov. 30, 2023 Recommendation to dismiss
and Jan. 8 2024 Order dismissing claim without leave to amend)

14
15

(ECF No. 5 at 22-23 n.7; ECF No. 5-1).7 At the time Defendants filed their motion to dismiss,

16

Defendants say that Plaintiff’s two other lawsuits were waiting for hearings on the Motion for

17
18

Judgment on the Pleadings.8 Defendants represent that these are just the cases Plaintiff has filed
since 2019. (Id. at 15).
The Court takes judicial notice9 of the cases submitted. (ECF No. 5-1). The Court also

19
20

determines that these cases show that Plaintiff has filed at least 14 unsuccessful lawsuits that were

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Defendants also states that “Plaintiff has also filed eight Habeas Corpus applications that were denied,
and while Defendant does not have access to these applications, it is very likely these all related back to
this special security bond Plaintiff seeks.” (ECF No. 5 at 22 n.6).
8
(Id.(citing See RJN, Exh. 5 & 7. Caetano v. CA Dept. of Corrections and Rehabilitation, et al., Superior
Court of California, Sacramento County; Case No. 23CV006665; Caetano v. David Robinson, et al.;
Superior Court of California, Kings County; Case No. 23CU0234)).
9
The Court may take judicial notice of a fact that “is not subject to reasonable dispute because it (1) is
generally known within the trial court’s territorial jurisdiction; or (2) can be accurately and readily
determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” Fed. R. Evid. 201; see also
United States ex rel. Robinson Rancheria Citizens Council v. Borneo, Inc., 971 F.2d 244, 248 (9th Cir.
1992) (noting that courts “may take notice of proceedings in other courts, both within and without the
federal judicial system, if those proceedings have a direct relation to matters at issue.”) (quoting St. Louis
Baptist Temple, Inc. v. FDIC, 605 F.2d 1169, 1172 (10th Cir. 1979)).
7

13

1

adversely decided against Plaintiff.10 Thus, the Court has an adequate record for review.
3. Substantive Finding

2
3

As to this factor, Defendants argue that (1) “the record demonstrates that Plaintiff has a

4

history of filing lawsuits that are not only duplicative, but also harassing and vexatious;” (2) “to

5

date, none of Plaintiff’s efforts have been successful” but instead, “14 of the cases he filed within

6
7
8
9

the last five years have been dismissed at the pleading stage for failure to state a claim or for
failure to prosecute or appear;” and (3) “this Court has already ruled on this same claim brought
by Plaintiff repeatedly, stating, ‘Plaintiff’s complaint lacks an arguable basis in both law and fact,
and he does not state a plausible claim.’” (Id. at 24 (citing Caetano v. Kings County Sheriff, et
al., U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California; Case No. 1:22-cv-261 (April 27, 2022

10
Order dismissing lawsuit without leave to amend))).
11
12

“The third factor set forth by De Long gets to the heart of the vexatious litigant analysis,
inquiring whether the district court made substantive findings as to the frivolous or harassing

13

nature of the litigant’s actions.” Molski, 500 F.3d at 1050 (quoting De Long, 912 F.2d at 1148).

14

To decide whether a litigant’s actions are frivolous or harassing, a court must “look at both the

15

number and content of the filings as indicia of the frivolousness of the litigant's claims.” Id. at

16

1058. “An injunction cannot issue merely upon a showing of litigiousness. The plaintiff’s claims

17

must not only be numerous, but also be patently without merit.” Id. at 1059. (quoting Moy v.

18

United States, 906 F.2d 467, 470 (9th Cir. 1990)).

19

The Court agrees with Defendant that Plaintiff’s previous filings are both numerous and

20

meritless. Each of the 15 matters listed above demonstrate the frivolousness and harassing nature

21

of Plaintiff’s filings. To date, none of Plaintiff’s efforts have been successful. Instead, 14 of the

22

cases he filed within the last five years have been dismissed at the pleading stage for failure to

23

state a claim or for failure to prosecute or appear.
Moreover, as mentioned above, Plaintiff has filed almost identical allegations in other

24
25

previous cases, and the courts have dismissed those allegations as frivolous. Caetano v.

26
10

27
28

Of the fifteen cases submitted, the record reflects that one case is still pending: Caetano v. David
Robinson, et al.; Superior Court of California, Kings County; Case No. 23-CU-0234 (Docket showing that
Plaintiff’s claim is still pending, waiting on a hearing for a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings). (ECF
No. 5-1 at 34).

14

1

Depository Trust Company, Case No. 1:22-cv-679, ECF No. 17 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 30, 2022);

2

Caetano v. Internal Revenue Service et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-837, ECF No. 13 (E.D. Cal. June

3

20, 2023).

4

These lawsuits, motions and appeals indicate a pattern of ignoring previous rulings,

5

disobeying court orders and rules, pleading baseless conspiracy theories, and pursuing meritless

6
7
8
9

positions. Without judicial intervention, Plaintiff will likely continue with his abusive tactics by
filing frivolous complaints. Accordingly, the Court’s substantive findings concerning Plaintiff’s
previous filings weigh in favor of limiting Plaintiff’s ability to engage in future abusive, frivolous
litigation.
4. Narrowly Tailored

10
Defendants ask that this Court issue a pre-filing order to protect both the Court and
11

potential defendants from the burden of litigating Plaintiff’s frivolous claims. (ECF No. 5 at 26).

12
13
14

A pre-filing order must be “narrowly tailored to the vexatious litigant’s wrongful
behavior.” Molski, 500 F.3d at 1061 (affirming a pre-filing order that appropriately covered only
the type of claims Molski had been filing vexatiously).

15

The Court determines that a pre-filing order is warranted due to the vexatious nature of

16

Plaintiff’s previous litigation. However, such order must be narrowly tailored to curtail “the

17

specific vice encountered.” De Long, 912 F.2d at 1148. Accordingly, the undersigned will

18

recommend that Plaintiff be limited from filing any federal lawsuits in this district without prior

19

approval of a magistrate or district judge.

20

IV.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

21

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED as follows:

22

1. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to assign a District Judge to this case.

23

Further, IT IS RECOMMENDED as follows:

24

1. Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 5) be granted as follows:

25
26
27

a. Defendants’ motion to dismiss be granted;
b. Defendants’ request to deem Plaintiff a vexatious litigant be granted. Plaintiff
shall be found to be a vexatious litigant and the Clerk of Court should be
directed to not accept, without written authorization from a District Judge or

28
15

1

Magistrate Judge of this Court, any future filings from Plaintiff. See E.D. Cal.

2

Local Rule 133(b)(2). To the extent that Plaintiff seeks such authorization in

3

the future, he must submit a copy of this Order with any proposed filing. The

4

Clerk of the Court shall forward any complaint filed to the Chief District

5

Judge, or any Judge designated by the Chief District Judge, to review and
determine whether permission to file should be granted.

6
7
8
9

2. This case be dismissed, with prejudice; and
3. All outstanding motions be denied as moot.
These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States district judge
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within thirty (30)

10
days after being served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file written
11
12
13
14

objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s
Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the
specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834,
838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

15
16
17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

March 5, 2025

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
16