Epperson v. United States ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHRIS EPPERSON, Case No. 1:22-cv-00534-DAD-HBK (PC) 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS THE ACTION AND DENY 13 v. MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 1 14 UNITED STATES; JOHN F. KENNEDY; THEODORE ROOSEVELT; BEN FOURTEEN-DAY OBJECTION PERIOD 15 FRANKLIN; AND BENJAMIN HARRIS, (Doc. No. 2) 16 Defendants. 17 18 Plaintiff Chris Epperson, who is proceeding pro se, initiated this action by filing a civil 19 complaint form on May 5, 2022. (Doc. No. 1, “Complaint”). For the reasons set forth herein, the 20 undersigned recommends the district court dismiss this case, without leave to amend the 21 Complaint, because the Court lacks jurisdiction, the Complaint fails to state a claim, and the 22 Complaint is frivolous. The undersigned further recommends the district court deny Plaintiff’s 23 motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 24 /// 25 /// 26 27 1 The undersigned submits these factual findings and recommendations to the district court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302 (E.D. Cal. 2022). 28 1 BACKGROUND 2 A. Applicable Law 3 Because Plaintiff seeks to proceed in form pauperis, the Court may dismiss this action “at 4 any time” if the Court determines, inter alia, the action is frivolous or fails to state a claim. 28 5 U.S.C § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(ii). A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either 6 in law or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); see also Franklin v. Murphy, 745 7 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th Cir. 1984). Alternatively, claims are frivolous where they are based on 8 an indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. 9 Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327. And a claim is frivolous “when the facts alleged rise to the level of the 10 irrational or the wholly incredible, whether or not there are judicially noticeable facts available to 11 contradict them.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992); see also Neitzke v. Williams, 12 490 U.S. 319, 325, 328 (1989) (finding claims may be dismissed as “frivolous” where the 13 allegations are “fanciful” or “describe[e] fantastic or delusional scenarios”). 14 Dismissal for failure to state a claim in this context is governed by the same standard as 15 dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 16 1194 (9th Cir. 1998). As such, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter to state a claim 17 to relief that is “plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). “A complaint 18 is plausible on its face when it contains sufficient facts to support a reasonable inference that the 19 defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. At this stage, the Court accepts the facts 20 stated in the complaint as true. Hosp. Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hosp. Tr., 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976); 21 Bernhardt v. L.A. County, 339 F.3d 920, 925 (9th Cir. 2003). The Court does not accept as true 22 allegations that are merely conclusory, unreasonable inferences, or unwarranted deductions. 23 Western Mining Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d 618, 624 (9th Cir. 1981). Nor are legal conclusions 24 considered facts. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. Critical to evaluating a constitutional claim is whether 25 it has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 26 1989). 27 B. Summary of the Complaint 28 Plaintiff initiated this matter, proceeding pro se, by filing a civil complaint form. (See 1 generally Doc. No. 1). The entirety of the Complaint totals six pages in length and contains two 2 complete sentences. (Id.). The Complaint identifies deceased former Presidents of the United 3 States and the United States as the Defendants. (Id. at 1-3). As the basis for federal jurisdiction 4 Plaintiff lists: “War National Defense,” “United States Bank,” and “Chemical Weapons 5 Convention.” (Id. at 4). Under the amount in controversy, Plaintiff writes “Federal dont [sic] 6 cross state.” (Id. at 5). In his statement of the claim, Plaintiff writes: “Defrauded State 7 Washington.” (Id.). As relief, Plaintiff requests that “They dont [sic] even like you messing with 8 their powers.” (Id. at 6). Plaintiff seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this action. (Doc. 9 No. 2). 10 ANALYSIS 11 A. Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction 12 A federal court lacks jurisdiction to consider claims that are “essentially fictitious,” 13 “obviously frivolous,” or “obviously without merit.” Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 537, 94 14 (1974). Thus, a “claim may be dismissed for want of subject-matter jurisdiction if it is not 15 colorable” or if it “is ‘wholly insubstantial and frivolous.’” Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 16 500, 513 n.10 (2006) (citations omitted); see also Shapiro v. McManus, 577 U.S. 39, 45 (2015) 17 (insubstantiality for jurisdictional purposes “has been equated with such concepts as ‘essentially 18 fictitious,’ ‘wholly insubstantial,’ ‘obviously frivolous’”); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 19 1227 n.6 (9th Cir. 1984) (even “[a] paid complaint that is ‘obviously frivolous’ does not confer 20 subject matter jurisdiction”). 21 B. Failure to State a Claim and Frivolous 22 Even if the Court had jurisdiction over this action, the undersigned would recommend 23 dismissal for failure to state a claim. 28 U.S.C § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Here, Plaintiff’s Complaint is 24 devoid of any facts in support of any claim. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (a complaint must contain “a 25 short and plain statement of the claim showing the pleader is entitled to relief”). Thus, the 26 Complaint lacks an arguable basis in both law and fact and does not state any claim, yet alone a 27 plausible claim. 28 Further, a review of the Complaint confirms its frivolity particularly because it identifies 1 | former United States Presidents and/or founding fathers who are currently deceased as 2 | Defendants. (Doc. No. | at 2-3). Because the Complaint is frivolous, dismissal without leave to 3 | amend is appropriate. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 n. 8 (9th Cir. 2000) (“When a 4 | case may be classified as frivolous or malicious, there is, by definition, no merit to the underlying 5 || action and so no reason to grant leave to amend.”). 6 C. Denial of In Forma Pauperis Application 7 When an action is frivolous, the denial of an application to proceed in forma pauperis is 8 | also appropriate. See e.g., Minetti v. Port of Seattle, 152 F.3d 1113, 1115 (9th Cir. 1998) (SA 9 | district court may deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis at the outset if it appears from the face 10 | of the proposed complaint that the action is frivolous or without merit”); Tripati v. First Nat’l 11 | Bank & Trust, 821 F.2d 1368, 1369 (9th Cir. 1987) (same). 12 Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED: 13 1. This case be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction or for failure to state a 14 | claim and/or as frivolous. 15 2. Plaintiffs motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 2) be denied. 16 NOTICE TO PARTIES 17 These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 18 | assigned to the case pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days 19 | after being served with these findings and recommendations, a party may file written objections 20 | with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings 21 | and Recommendations.” Parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified 22 | time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 23 | (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). | Dated: _ May 16, 2022 Mile. Wh fareh fackte 5 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 27 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28