Khazali v. United States of America

Filing 8

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Plaintiff shall file a Response to this Order to Show Cause no later than twenty-one (21) days from the date of this Order ; ORDER denying Plaintiff's 6 MOTION for Recusal ; signed by Judge Ricardo S Martinez. (SWT) (cc: Plaintiff via USPS)

Download PDF
  1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 8 9 10 MASOUD KHAZALI, 11 Plaintiff, 12 13 v. Case No. C17-1102 RSM ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECUSAL AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE JAMES L. ROBART, 14 15 Defendant. 16 Pro Se Plaintiff Masoud Khazali has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in 17 this matter. Dkt. #4. The Complaint was posted on the docket on July 25, 2017. Dkt. #5. 18 Summons has not yet been issued. 19 20 21 As an initial matter, Plaintiff brings a Motion for “Recusal and Direct Review by Jury.” Dkt. #6. Plaintiff “request[s] this case to be reviewed directly by a 12 member jury because 22 Federal judges cannot defend their own States, whom they are working for, at their own court 23 against immigrants whom the States have been abusing for more than 200 years!” Id. Plaintiff 24 25 26 makes tangential references to the United States of America’s promotion of slavery and the bible. Plaintiff ends with a conciliatory parenthetical: “(Judges could read the document and 27 issue corrective orders to correct the previous orders).” Id. The Court finds that Plaintiff has 28 presented insufficient evidence to support a request for recusal. Plaintiff does not request that ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - 1   1 any one judge be recused, rather that all judges generally recuse themselves; this is not relief 2 that can be granted. The Court notes that Plaintiff is apparently satisfied with this Court’s 3 authority to hear this case as long as it rules in Plaintiff’s favor; this further persuades the Court 4 that denial is appropriate. Plaintiff’s allegations, similar to those in his Complaint described 5 6 7 below, appear frivolous. Accordingly, this Motion will be denied. Plaintiff brings this action against the United States of America (“the Government”). 8 Dkt. #5 at 1. Plaintiff states that the Government “acted unconstitutional [sic] by Kidnapping 9 [sic] the child of the immigrant (and the U.S. citizen) Mr. Khazali,” and that the Government 10 11 12 “supports and promotes such a crime act by promoting Christianity that confirms the act of the Kidnapping and slavery of immigrant children (in its book of Bible) and by naming its Capital, 13 State, university, currency and stamp after the slave master (Washington) who supported 14 Kidnapping immigrant children and Slavery.” Id. Plaintiff goes on to describe our nation’s 15 first president, George Washington, as “an English officer who murdered French” and “an 16 English who used arms and explosives to fight the then current Government [during the 17 18 American Revolution]; an act of terrorism.” Id. at 1. Plaintiff alleges that the Government 19 “supports Kidnapping, child abuse, slavery, gender and racial inequality and terrorism as long 20 as it symbolizes Washington and names its capital after such a criminal and prints its currency 21 in the name of such criminal terrorist…” Id. Plaintiff’s views on George Washington and 22 23 24 Christianity surface repeatedly and unexpectedly in the Complaint. Plaintiff appears to bring this lawsuit based on the Honorable Judge James. L. Robart’s denial of Plaintiff’s motion for a 25 stay in a prior or concurrent action. See id. at 3. Plaintiff argues that “judges should not be 26 allowed to preside over the conflicts between a citizen and a State (Or the States)” and that “no 27 court should oversee a conflict between a court and a citizen.” Id. at 3-4. 28 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - 2   1 Plaintiff includes the following attachments to his Complaint: “The Kidnap Loving 2 State,” which provides a sort of history of slavery in the United States; “The State of the 3 Claim,” which provides some procedural background, “The Tort of the Court,” which appears 4 at first glance to allege violations of the Constitution committed by various courts, but actually 5 6 7 attempts to connect modern court procedures like asking witnesses to raise their right hand or hearing testimony from witnesses to ancient religious practices; “Life: the Live Connection 8 through Space,” which engages in a metaphysical discussion of “invisible energy” and “hidden 9 life in light;” “The Immune Executioner,” which discusses injury to the Plaintiff, including 10 11 12 13 Plaintiff “los[ing] his mind,” caused by the separation of Plaintiff from his child; “Prevention of Abuse,” broadly discussing his claim; and “Valuing Property over Humanity,” which accuses the Court of continuing historic practices of slavery. See id. at 5-18. 14 The Court will dismiss a Complaint at any time if the action fails to state a claim, raises 15 frivolous or malicious claims, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from 16 such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 17 18 The Complaint does not clearly identify what laws or statues Plaintiff believes give rise 19 to a claim against the Government, and Plaintiff does not support his claims with specific facts 20 presented in a clear and understandable manner. Plaintiff’s allegations are extremely difficult 21 to follow with unconnected facts and broad sweeping accusations of crime connected to 22 23 24 25 unrelated historical events or possibly official court actions. It is unclear from the Complaint how the Court has subject matter jurisdiction, why the Government would not be immune from suit, or even what relief Plaintiff is seeking. 26 27 28 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - 3   1 Considering all of the above, Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state a claim and appears 2 frivolous and malicious. Plaintiff’s Complaint suffers from deficiencies that, if not adequately 3 explained in response to this Order, will require dismissal. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 4 5 6 7 In Response to this Order, Plaintiff must write a short and plain statement telling the Court (1) the laws, statutes, or specific portions of the Constitution upon which his claims are based, (2) how Defendant violated those laws or statutes causing harm to Plaintiff, and (3) why 8 this case should not be dismissed as frivolous. This Response may not exceed six (6) pages. 9 Plaintiff is not permitted to file additional pages as attachments. The Court will take no further 10 11 12 action in this case until Plaintiff has submitted this Response. The Court hereby finds and ORDERS: 13 (1) Plaintiff’s Motion for Recusal (Dkt. #6) is DENIED. 14 (2) Plaintiff shall file a Response to this Order to Show Cause containing the detail 15 above no later than twenty-one (21) days from the date of this Order. Failure to 16 file this Response will result in dismissal of this case. The Clerk shall send a copy 17 18 of this Order to Plaintiff at 14324 32ND AVE NE, APT D, SEATTLE, WA 98125. 19 20 DATED this 27th day of July 2017. 21 A 22 23 RICARDO S. MARTINEZ CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - 4

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?