(PC) Paul E. Duran v. Longoria ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 PAUL EDWARD DURAN., Case No. 1:20-cv-00289-HBK (PC) 11 Plaintiff, ORDER STRIKING IMPROPER PLEADING 12 v. (Doc. No. 56) 13 LONGORIA, 14 Defendant. 15 16 On February 2, 2024, Plaintiff filed a pleading titled “Motion Declining the California 17 Attorney Generals [sic] Offer to Settel [sic] Case. and, First time Notice to the Court of 18 Incorporation status involves reasons for declining state.” (Doc. No. 56, “Motion”). The 19 pleading, while styled as a motion, essentially consists of a letter “informing the Court and the 20 California Deputy Attorney General ‘Jacqueline Kellberg’” that Plaintiff is declining a proposed 21 stipulation for voluntary dismissal with prejudice of the instant case because the stipulation is “in 22 stark contrast to [his] current filings for sovereignty as an ecclesiastical Incorporation status that 23 was obtained in the probate court, Thirteenth Judicial District Court Sandoval County of New 24 Mexico . . .” (Id. at 2). To the extent discernible, Plaintiff asserts that due to a recent inheritance 25 from his mother and his status as a sovereign citizen, he cannot enter the proposed stipulation 26 with the Attorney General’s Office. (Id. at 3-6). 27 At the outset, the Court notes that this case proceeds only on Plaintiff’s First Amendment 28 free exercise of religion claim against Defendant Longoria. (See Doc. Nos. 27, 30). The Court 1 | will not tolerate any attempt by Plaintiff to interject additional claims based upon Plaintiff's 2 | asserted status as a sovereign citizen. Indeed, numerous courts across the country “have 3 | uniformly rejected arguments” based on the sovereign citizen ideology as frivolous, irrational, or 4 | unintelligible. United States v. Staten, No. 1:10-cr-179, 2012 WL 2389871, at *3 (M.D. Pa. June 5 | 25, 2012) (collecting cases). Similarly, the Ninth Circuit has rejected arguments premised on the 6 | ideology as “utterly meritless.” See United States v. Studley, 783 F.2d 934, 937 n.3 (9th Cir. 7 | 1986). 8 Additionally, Plaintiff is advised that any motions requesting relief must “state with 9 | particularity the grounds for seeking the order[,]” and “state the relief sought[,]” which □□□□□□□□□□ 10 | pleading fails to do. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(b). Plaintiff's pleading seeks no relief from the Court 11 | and instead “inform[s]” the Court of the reasons why Plaintiff is declining a proposed settlement 12 | offer. Because Plaintiffs pleading fails to comport with this Court’s procedural rules and local 13 rules of which Plaintiff was advised, the Court will order it stricken. (See Doc. No. 3 at C, E, 14 || F advising pro se prisoner of Fed. R. Civ. P. 7, Local Rules 131, 133). 15 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 16 The Clerk of Court is directed to strike Plaintiffs pleading which is improperly styled as a 17 || “Motion” (Doc. No. 56) for the reasons set forth above and terminate it as a pending motion from 18 | the docket. 19 | Dated: __ February 8, 2024 Mihaw. Wh. foareh Zaskth 21 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28