Semiani v. United States of America

Filing 7

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER regarding Complaint 1 filed by Larbi Semiani. 1. This matter is dismissed with prejudice because it is frivolous and malicious. 2. Plaintiff is warned that this court will not tolerate his continued filing of frivolous and malicious complaints. If Plaintiff files a future lawsuit relating to the denial of a visa in this court, it may result in the issuance of an order barring the acceptance of any future complaints without first obtaining the court's leave to file a new action. 3. A separate judgment will be entered in accordance with this Memorandum and Order. Ordered by Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(JAB)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
LARBI SEMIANI,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

8:13CV205

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

Plaintiff filed his Complaint in this matter on July 8, 2013. (Filing No. 1.)
Plaintiff has previously been given leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The court
now conducts an initial review of the Complaint to determine whether summary
dismissal is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
I. SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT
Plaintiff’s Complaint is very difficult to decipher. (Filing No. 1 at CM/ECF p.
1.) Plaintiff, who resides in Algeria, alleges he has received summons requesting his
appearance in a California state court where he is a defendant in a family law and
domestic violence case. (Filing No. 1 at CM/ECF p. 2.) As best as the court can tell,
Plaintiff was not permitted reentry into the United States to defend himself in the state
court proceeding and was denied a “U visa.” (Id. at CM/ECF pp. 1-6.) Plaintiff
believes the “USA Government and courts betrayed” him and asks this court to issue
an order to restore his “civil rights.” (Id. at CM/ECF p. 5.)
II. APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS ON INITIAL REVIEW
The court is required to review in forma pauperis complaints to determine
whether summary dismissal is appropriate. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The court must

dismiss a complaint or any portion thereof that states a frivolous or malicious claim,
that fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seeks monetary
relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
A pro se plaintiff must set forth enough factual allegations to “nudge[] their
claims across the line from conceivable to plausible,” or “their complaint must be
dismissed” for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Bell Atlantic
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 569-70 (2007); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct.
1937, 1950 (2009) (“A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual
content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is
liable for the misconduct alleged.”). Regardless of whether a plaintiff is represented
or is appearing pro se, the plaintiff’s complaint must allege specific facts sufficient
to state a claim. See Martin v. Sargent, 780 F.2d 1334, 1337 (8th Cir. 1985).
However, a pro se plaintiff’s allegations must be construed liberally. Burke v. North
Dakota Dep’t of Corr. & Rehab., 294 F.3d 1043, 1043-44 (8th Cir. 2002) (citations
omitted).
III. DISCUSSION OF CLAIMS
Plaintiff has a history of filing claims similar to those alleged in this matter in
other federal courts throughout the country. See, e.g., Semiani v. United States, No.
09 0387, 2009 WL 498051, at *1 (D.D.C. Feb. 26, 2009) (stating that “[a]lthough
[plaintiff] provides a narrative of events seemingly unrelated to the relief sought,
plaintiff ultimately seeks review of the denial of a visa to re-enter the United States
to participate in court proceedings” and dismissing complaint because “[t]he decision
of a consular officer to grant or deny a visa is not subject to judicial review”) aff’d
575 F.3d 715 (D.C. Cir. 2009); Semiani v. USA-Federal Gov’t, 10 Civ. 9624 (LAP)
(S.D.N.Y. Feb. 2, 2011) (Doc. 5, CM/ECF) (dismissing, as frivolous and meritless,
plaintiff’s complaint alleging the Government violated his rights by denying him a
visa to re-enter the United States for court proceedings in Los Angeles Superior Court
2

after he was deported); Semiani v. U.S.-U.S. Gov’t, No. 13 0217, 2013 WL 653923,
at *1 (D.D.C. Feb. 21, 2013) (dismissing complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 and
concluding plaintiff’s claims were incoherent).
Like his prior cases, Plaintiff ultimately seeks review of the denial of his “U
visa.” (Filing No. 1.) Plaintiff has been repeatedly informed that such a claim is not
subject to judicial review. See, e.g., Semiani v. United States, No. 09 0387, 2009 WL
498051, at *1; Semiani v. USA-Federal Gov’t, 10 Civ. 9624 (LAP). Moreover, the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York has warned
Plaintiff that his continued filing of frivolous and meritless complaints regarding the
denial of a visa could result in the issuance of an order barring the acceptance of any
future complaints. Semiani v. USA-Federal Gov’t, 10 Civ. 9624 (LAP) (Doc. 5
CM/ECF).
In light of these findings, the court will dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint with
prejudice. In addition, Plaintiff is warned that this court will not tolerate his
continued filing of frivolous and malicious complaints. If Plaintiff files a future
lawsuit relating to the denial of a visa in this court, it may result in the issuance of an
order barring the acceptance of any future complaints without first obtaining the
court’s leave to file a new action. Accordingly,
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
1.
This matter is dismissed with prejudice because it is frivolous and
malicious.
2.
Plaintiff is warned that this court will not tolerate his continued filing of
frivolous and malicious complaints. If Plaintiff files a future lawsuit relating to the
denial of a visa in this court, it may result in the issuance of an order barring the

3

acceptance of any future complaints without first obtaining the court’s leave to file
a new action.
3.
A separate judgment will be entered in accordance with this
Memorandum and Order.

DATED this 5th day of August, 2013.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Joseph F. Bataillon
United States District Judge

*This opinion may contain hyperlinks to other documents or Web sites. The U.S. District Court for
the District of Nebraska does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services
or products they provide on their Web sites. Likewise, the court has no agreements with any of these third
parties or their Web sites. The court accepts no responsibility for the availability or functionality of any
hyperlink. Thus, the fact that a hyperlink ceases to work or directs the user to some other site does not affect
the opinion of the court.

4