Epperson v. Deutsche Bank ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 CHRIS EPPERSON, Case No. 1:24-cv-00286-SKO 10 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION THAT PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT BE 11 v. D AI MS EM NIS DS ED WITHOUT LEAVE TO 12 (Doc. 1) 13 DEUTSCHE BANK, et al., TWENTY-ONE DAY DEADLINE 14 Defendants. Clerk to Assign District Judge 15 _____________________________________/ 16 17 Plaintiff Chris Epperson (“Plaintiff”) proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis in this action. 18 (Docs. 1, 6.). The complaint, filed on March 7, 2024, lists as defendants Deutsche Bank, Lyndon 19 B. Johnson, Hary [sic] S. Truman, Ronald W. Reagon [sic], Richard M. Nixon, and Thomas 20 Jefferson. (Doc. 1 at 1–4.) Plaintiff claims to be suing under the “Wheeler Act of Congress,” 21 Amendment XII of the United States Constitution, and “Article II, Section 2, clause 2.” (Id. at 4.) 22 The Court concludes that the complaint fails to state any cognizable claims and recommends 23 dismissing it without leave to amend. 24 I. SCREENING REQUIREMENT 25 As Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court screens the complaint under 28 26 U.S.C. § 1915. (Doc. 6.) “Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have 27 been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that the action or appeal 28 fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 1 A complaint is required to contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 2 pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not required, 3 but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory 4 statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. 5 v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). A plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted 6 as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 7 570). The mere possibility of misconduct falls short of meeting this plausibility standard. Id. at 8 679. While a plaintiff’s allegations are taken as true, courts “are not required to indulge unwarranted 9 inferences.” Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (citation and internal 10 quotation marks omitted). Additionally, a plaintiff’s legal conclusions are not accepted as true. 11 Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. 12 Pleadings of pro se plaintiffs “must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings 13 drafted by lawyers.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding that pro se 14 complaints should continue to be liberally construed after Iqbal). 15 II. SUMMARY OF PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT 16 Plaintiff lists the following defendants: Deutsche Bank, Lyndon B. Johnson, Hary [sic] S. 17 Truman, Ronald W. Reagon [sic], Richard M. Nixon, and Thomas Jefferson. (Doc. 1 at 1–4.) 18 Plaintiff states that the basis of jurisdiction is the “Wheeler Act of Congress,” Amendment XII of 19 the United States Constitution, and “Article II, Section 2, clause 2.” (Id. at 4.) In the statement of 20 claim, Plaintiff states “Nail in the coffin of the Constitution had been violated by the action of the 21 state legislature where the prohibition is against State laws impairing the obligation of contracts 22 liberalism bicameral unicameral Article II Section 1 Clause 3” (errors in original). (Id. at 5.) In the 23 section titled “Relief,” Plaintiff writes: “Did Parliament House of Commons national assembly left 24 wing motion of no confidence lower House left seat right wing multi-party system assumption of 25 jurisdiction over common law counterclaims violate the Constitution” (errors in original). (Id. at 26 6.) 27 28 1 III. ANALYSIS OF PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT 2 A complaint will be considered frivolous, and therefore subject to dismissal under § 3 1915(e)(2)(B), “where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Nietzke v. Williams, 490 4 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); see also Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32–33 (1992) (“At the same time 5 that it sought to lower judicial access barriers to the indigent, however, Congress recognized that ‘a 6 litigant whose filing fees and court costs are assumed by the public, unlike a paying litigant, lacks 7 an economic incentive to refrain from filing frivolous, malicious, or repetitive lawsuits.’”). A 8 federal court cannot properly sua sponte dismiss an action commenced in forma pauperis if the facts 9 alleged in the complaint are merely “unlikely.” Denton, 504 U.S. at 33. However, a complaint may 10 be properly dismissed sua sponte if the allegations are found to be “fanciful,” “fantastic,” or 11 “delusional,” or if they “rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible.” Id. at 32–33. If 12 a case is classified as frivolous, “there is, by definition, no merit to the underlying action and so no 13 reason to grant leave to amend.” Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 n. 8 (9th Cir. 2000). 14 Plaintiff’s complaint is frivolous under this legal standard. Plaintiff does not set forth any 15 facts. He lists as defendants Deutsche Bank and five former Presidents of the United States who are 16 now deceased. Plaintiff’s statement of claim—”Nail in the coffin of the Constitution had been 17 violated by the action of the state legislature where the prohibition is against State laws impairing 18 the obligation of contracts liberalism bicameral unicameral Article II Section 1 Clause 3”—is 19 incoherent and fanciful. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s complaint should be dismissed. See Sameer v. 20 Khera, No. 1:17-cv-01748-DAD-EPG, 2018 WL 6338729, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2018), appeal 21 dismissed as frivolous, No. 19-15011, 2019 WL 7425404 (9th Cir. Aug. 27, 2019) (dismissing the 22 case with prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction as “the only appropriate response” to 23 “fanciful allegations” in complaint that “alleges the existence of a vast conspiracy bent on plaintiff’s 24 destruction”); Ayres v. Obama, Civil No. 13–00371 SOM/RLP, 2013 WL 5754953, at *2 (D. 25 Hawai’i Oct. 22, 2013) (allegations that FBI implanted biochips in plaintiff and her family to turn 26 them into “a living vegetable or a New World Order slave” were “so ‘fantastic’ and ‘fanciful’ as to 27 be clearly baseless”); Bivolarevic v. U.S. CIA, No. C 09-4620 SBA, 2010 WL 890147, at *1–2 (N.D. 28 Cal. Mar. 8, 2010) (court lacked jurisdiction over claims that CIA subjected plaintiff to “voice to 1 skull technology” as a “mind control weapon”). 2 IV. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION 3 For the foregoing reasons, the undersigned recommends that Plaintiff’s complaint be 4 dismissed, without leave to amend. Although this is Plaintiff’s first complaint, it is clear from the 5 face of the complaint that it is frivolous.1 6 Accordingly, based on the foregoing, IT IS RECOMMENDED that: 7 1. Plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed, without leave to amend; and 8 2. The Clerk of the Court be instructed to close the case. 9 These findings and recommendation will be submitted to the United States district judge 10 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within twenty-one 11 (21) days after being served with these findings and recommendation, Plaintiff may file written 12 objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 13 Findings and Recommendation.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the 14 specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 15 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 16 Additionally, Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to assign a district judge to this case. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 19 Dated: March 19, 2024 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 If Plaintiff believes that he can cure this deficiency in an amended complaint, he may file objections to these Findings