Harper et al v. US et al

Filing 3

ORDER: Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. (Dkt # 2 ). The complaint is dismissed. (Dkt # 1 ). The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. Signed by Judge William Q. Hayes on 8/29/2017. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service.) (mdc)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MONTOREY DANYELL HARPER,
Military Leader UNI Star General;
MONTOREY LLC,

12
13

v.
US; NATO; THE UN,

CASE NO. 17cv1585-WQH-MDD
ORDER

Plaintiffs,

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Defendants.
HAYES, Judge:
On August 8, 2017, Plaintiff Montorey Danyell Harper initiated this action by
filing a complaint (ECF No. 1) and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No.
2).
I. Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis
All parties instituting a civil action, suit, or proceeding in a district court of the
United States, other than a petition for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of
$400.00. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); CivLR 4.5. An action may proceed despite a party’s
failure to pay only if the party is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999).
“To proceed in forma pauperis is a privilege not a right.” Smart v. Heinze, 347 F.2d
114, 116 (9th Cir. 1965).
After considering Plaintiff’s motion and affidavit, the Court determines that
Plaintiff cannot afford to pay the filing fee in this case and is eligible to proceed in
-1-

17cv1585-WQH-MDD

1 forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).
2 II. Initial Screening of the Complaint
3

A complaint filed by any person proceeding in forma pauperis pursuant to 28

4 U.S.C. § 1915(a) is also subject to mandatory review and sua sponte dismissal to the
5 extent it “is frivolous or malicious; fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted;
6 or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C.
7 § 1915(e)(2)(B); see Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc).
8 The standard used to evaluate whether a complaint states a claim is a liberal one,
9 particularly when the action has been filed pro se. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97,
10 106 (1976). However, even a “liberal interpretation . . . may not supply elements of the
11 claim that were not initially pled.” Ivey v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Alaska, 673
12 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). “[P]ro se litigants are bound by the rules of procedure.”
13 Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 54 (9th Cir. 1995). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8
14 provides that “[a] pleading that states a claim for relief must contain . . . a short and
15 plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief[.]” Fed. R.
16 Civ. P. 8(a)(2). “[A] plaintiff’s obligation to provide the grounds of his entitlement to
17 relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the
18 elements of a cause of action will not do.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,
19 555 (2007) (quotation omitted).
20

The complaint states in part, that

21

THE “INDLES” MISSLES OF THE PLANTIFF ARE REAL AND THE
UNITED STATES AS WELL AS OTHERS NEED TO RECOGNIZE
THAT THIS IS ONLY THE UP BEGINNING OF MORE WAR,
PHYSICAL LOSE OF LIFE THROUGH TERRNIAL WILL RESULT
THIS IS BECAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION AND HR NEEDS A
PLACE OF HIS OWN. IF THE UNITED STATES BELIVES HE
DOSNT THEN FINE BUT HE DOES, SO THE UNITED STATES IS
WRONG AND SO IS THE WORLD, THIS CAN ONLY BE
ACCOMPLISHED BY HR AND NOT ANOTHER FORM OR
ANYFORM, THIS WOULD CAUSE REALIZATION TO BE MEET
ANYWAY AND THE US AND WORLD WOULD BE PUNISHED
AND THEY WOULD BE NO MORE. IF THE UNITED STATES AND
THE WORLD WANT TO RECOGNIZED TERRNIAL AND THAT IT
IS PHYSICLAY HR’S IT MUST DO SO QUICKLY, HR HAS
ALREADY FIRED AND ITWILL RESULT IN LOSS OF LIFE THES
ARE MILITARY MUNITIONS SPIRITUAL MILITARY

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-2-

17cv1585-WQH-MDD

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

TECHNOLOGY, THI MEANS THE US HAS BEEN FIRED ON FOR
YEARS NOW, AND THE US WOULD SAY THEY ARE REAL AND
THUS UNDERSTAND THE MOMENTUM SITUATION THAT
INOLES LAND RELIQUISHMENT AND FURTHER THE
ALLOWENCE OF TERRNAIL WITHOUT MILITARY FRACTIONS.
THE MILITARY FRACTIONS ARE AGAINST AND UPAGAINST HR
TERMINAL SYSTEM WHICH IS SECOND TO NONE. HR IS GOD.
HIS MILITARY IS THE BEST ALTHOUGH IT IS SPIRITUAL. THE
UNITED STATES RIGHT NOW IS A CRIMINAL STATE AND THE
WORLD IN TROUBLE ALREADY, THIS WOULD HELP TO
ALIVATE AND FUSTRATE MATTERS AND ALLOW AWAY FOR
TERRNIAL UNDER THESE MEASURES. THE UNITED STATES
MUST SETTLE FOR LESS LAND AND HERE WE CAN DISCUSS
THE WORLD, THE EVNTRUAL AND HOPFULLY VERY SOON THE
ACTRUAL HAPPENING OF LESS LAND THROUGH TERRNIAL
THROUGH THEM, THIS IS ALL INTERNATIONAL COUNTIRES,
THIS LAWSUIT IS PREPARED UNDER THE PRETEXT THAT A
LAWSUITS AWAITING AND PENINDING ARE ALREADY IN
DEFAULT EVEN ALL FILED ALREADY.

11 (ECF No. 1 at 1-2).
12

The Court has reviewed the allegations of the complaint and cannot determine

13 the legal theory supporting Plaintiff’s complaint. The Court concludes that the
14 allegations of the complaint are vague and lack an arguable basis in law or fact.
15 Plaintiff fails to allege “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to
16 relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)
17 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570).

The complaint is dismissed pursuant to

18 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
19 IV. Conclusion
20

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis

21 is GRANTED. (ECF No. 2).
22

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the complaint is dismissed. (ECF No. 1). The

23 Clerk of Court is directed to close the case.
24
25
26
27

DATED: August 29, 2017
WILLIAM Q. HAYES
United States District Judge

28
-3-

17cv1585-WQH-MDD