Alexio v. Obama et al
Filing
12
ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF DENNIS RAYMOND ALEXIO'S BILL IN EQUITY PETITION FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF, ENFORCEMENT OF TRUST, PROTECTION AND FULL ACCOUNTING (ECF NO. 1 ) WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by JUDGE HELEN GILLMOR on 9/15/2015. PLAINTIFF DENNIS RAYMOND ALEXIO'S BILL IN EQUITY PETITION FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF, ENFORCEMENT OF TRUST, PROTECTION AND FULL ACCOUNTING (ECF NO. 1) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Clerk of the Court is ordered to close the case. (ecs, )< FONT SIZE=1>CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEParticipants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e-mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Participants not registered to receive electronic notifications were served by first class mail on the date of this docket entry - Mr. Alexio served at both addresses.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
DENNIS RAYMOND ALEXIO,
Plaintiff,
vs.
BARACK OBAMA, TRUSTEE,
COMMANDER IN CHIEF, UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA; JACOB LEW,
TRUSTEE, SECRETARY OF THE
TREASURY, UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civ. No. 15-00209 HG-KSC
ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF DENNIS RAYMOND ALEXIO’S BILL IN EQUITY
PETITION FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF, ENFORCEMENT OF TRUST, PROTECTION
AND FULL ACCOUNTING (ECF NO. 1) WITH PREJUDICE
Plaintiff Dennis Raymond Alexio has filed a document
entitled “Bill in Equity Petition for Declaratory Relief,
Enforcement of Trusts, Protection and Full Accounting.”
Plaintiff purports to file suit against United States President
Barack Obama and United States Secretary of the Treasury Jacob
Lew.
Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and has paid the filing fee.
Plaintiff’s filing is difficult to decipher and contains
irrational and unintelligible pleadings.
The Court construes
Plaintiff’s pleading liberally and concludes that it does not
contain any claim upon which relief could be granted.
Plaintiff’s “Bill in Equity Petition for Declaratory Relief,
1
Enforcement of Trusts, Protection and Full Accounting” (ECF No.
1) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On June 4, 2015, Plaintiff filed BILL IN EQUITY PETITION FOR
DECLARATORY RELIEF, ENFORCEMENT OF TRUSTS, PROTECTION AND FULL
ACCOUNTING.
(ECF No. 1).
On the same date, Plaintiff filed a PETITION TO SEAL.
(ECF
No. 3).
On June 12, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued an ORDER
DENYING PLAINTIFF’S PETITION TO SEAL.
(ECF No. 9).
On June 29, 2015, Plaintiff filed an AMENDED PETITION TO
SEAL BILL IN EQUITY.
(ECF No. 10).
On July 7, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued an ORDER
DENYING PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED PETITION TO SEAL.
(ECF No. 11).
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8
Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that
a complaint include a “short and plain statement of the claim”
with “simple, concise, and direct” allegations.
Fed. R. Civ. P.
8(a)(2), (d)(1).
A district court may dismiss a complaint for failure to
2
comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 where it fails to provide the
defendant fair notice of the wrongs allegedly committed.
McHenry
v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1178-80 (9th Cir. 1996).
A complaint that is so confusing that its “true substance,
if any, is well disguised” may be dismissed sua sponte for
failure to satisfy Fed. R. Civ. P. 8.
Hearns v. San Bernadino
Police Dep’t, 530 F.3d 1124, 1131 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting
Gillibeau v. City of Richmond, 417 F.2d 426, 431 (9th Cir. 1969);
see Kaihana v. District Court of First Circuit, Waianae, Civ. No.
12-00041 HG-BMK, 2012 WL 928705, at *1 (D. Haw. Mar. 16, 2012).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)
The court may dismiss a complaint pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) if it fails to contain sufficient
factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that
is plausible on its face.
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
(2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570
(2007)).
The court may dismiss a complaint pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) on its own motion.
F.3d 359, 361-62 (9th Cir. 1981).
Wong v. Bell, 642
“Such a dismissal may be made
without notice where the claimant cannot possibly win relief.”
Omar v. Sea-Land Serv., Inc., 813 F.2d 986, 991 (9th Cir. 1987).
A district court may dismiss a claim sua sponte for a
3
defendant who has not filed a motion to dismiss.
Mier v.
Lordsman, Inc., Civ. No. 10-00584 JMS-KSC, 2011 WL 285862, *2 (D.
Haw. Jan. 27, 2011) (citing Baker v. Director, U.S. Parole
Comm’n, 916 F.2d 725, 727 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (holding that a
district court may dismiss cases sua sponte pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 12(b)(6) without notice where plaintiff could not prevail
on the complaint as alleged).
ANALYSIS
Because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court construes
his pleadings liberally.
Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1137
(9th Cir. 1987) (“The Supreme Court has instructed the federal
courts to liberally construe the ‘inartful pleading’ of pro se
litigants.” (citing Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 365 (1982)
(per curiam))).
Even liberally construed, Plaintiff’s “Bill in Equity”
filing is confused, incoherent, and unintelligible.
Plaintiff’s
pleading fails to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8.
The pleading does not state “simple, concise, and direct”
allegations against either of the Defendants.
Plaintiff’s filing also fails to state any kind of claim
against either Defendant that is remotely plausible on its face.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
Plaintiff’s filing makes references to the “Trading With the
4
Enemy Act,” 50 U.S.C. Appx. § 1, et seq.
(Pla.’s “Bill in
Equity” at pp. 3-9, ECF No. 1).
The Trading with the Enemies Act referenced by the Plaintiff
was enacted to allow allies and non-enemies to recover property
vested with the United States government during World War I and
World War II.
See Schilling v. Rogers, 363 U.S. 666, 667 (1960).
Plaintiff does not allege facts showing that he has any right to
relief pursuant to the Trading with the Enemies Act.
Bechard v.
Rios, 2014 WL 7366226, *1 (D. Wis. Dec. 24, 2014) (dismissing a
complaint with prejudice where the pro se plaintiff failed to
state a plausible claim pursuant to the Trading with the Enemies
Act).
Plaintiff also cites to the “Emergency Banking Relief Act.”
(Pla.’s “Bill in Equity” at pp. 3-9, ECF No. 1).
The National
Emergency Banking Relief Act, codified at 12 U.S.C. § 95, was
passed by Congress in 1933 and deals with the solvency of banks
and the operation of the Federal Reserve System during
emergencies.
Plaintiff has not presented any allegations that
could provide him with relief pursuant to the Emergency Banking
Relief Act.
Cearley v. United States, 119 Fed. Cl. 340, 344
(Fed. Cl. 2014) (dismissing a pro se complaint for failing to
state a claim pursuant to the Emergency Banking Relief Act);
Hardgrove v. Georgia, 2011 WL 4526755, *2 (M.D. Ga. Sept. 28,
2011) (dismissing a pro se complaint as frivolous that was based
5
on the Emergency Banking Relief Act).
Plaintiff continually refers to himself as a “Pre-1933
Private American National Citizen of the United States” who had a
“Certificate of Live Birth” issued on March 23, 1959.
“Bill in Equity” at pp. 1-2, ECF No. 1).
(Pla.’s
Plaintiff states that
he is “a member of the sovereign, American political community
known as ‘We the People’ having ordained and established the
‘Constitution for the United States of America’ to secure the
blessing of liberty for themselves and their Posterity of which
Complainant is a beneficially-interested member.”
(Id. at p. 6).
Similar allegations were made by Plaintiff Alexio in
pleadings filed in a criminal case against him that is also
pending in the District Court.
In his criminal case, the
District Court issued an Order denying Alexio’s request for an
order to show cause against the United States government.
United
States v. Alexio, ECF No. 158, Cr. No. 13-01017 JMS-BMK, 2015 WL
4069160, *2-*4 (D. Haw. July 2, 2015).
The District Court found
that “Defendant’s repeated references to being a ‘Pre-1933
Private American National Citizen of the United States’” was
evidence that Alexio was adhering to “sovereign citizen” theories
that have been uniformly rejected by courts across the United
States for being frivolous, irrational, and unintelligible.
The Court finds that Plaintiff Alexio’s filing does not
provide Defendants with fair notice of the wrongs they have
6
Id.
allegedly committed and it is dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 8.
McHenry, 84 F.3d at 1180.
The Court additionally dismisses Plaintiff’s action pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failing to state
a plausible claim upon which relief could be granted.
Omar, 813
F.2d at 991.
Amendment is not permitted as it is apparent from
Plaintiff’s filing that granting leave to amend would be futile.
Carrico v. City & Cnty. of S.F., 656 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir.
2011); W. Shoshone Nat’l Council v. Molini, 951 F.2d 200, 204
(9th Cir. 1991).
CONCLUSION
PLAINTIFF DENNIS RAYMOND ALEXIO’S BILL IN EQUITY PETITION
FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF, ENFORCEMENT OF TRUST, PROTECTION AND FULL
ACCOUNTING (ECF NO. 1) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
The Clerk of the Court is ordered to close the case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED:
Honolulu, Hawaii, September 15, 2015.
/s/ Helen Gillmor
Helen Gillmor
United States District Judge
7
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?