Moses v. District of Columbia ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 DAVID JOHN MOSES, Case No. 22-cv-05021-JSC 8 Plaintiff, ORDER OF DISMISSAL v. 9 10 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., Defendants. 11 12 INTRODUCTION 13 Plaintiff is confined at Napa State Hospital1 and is proceeding without representation by an 14 attorney. He filed this civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has been granted 15 leave to proceed in forma pauperis in a separate order. For the reasons discussed below, the 16 complaint is DISMISSED because it does not state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 17 STANDARD OF REVIEW 18 Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek 19 redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 20 1915A(a). The Court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of 21 the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief 22 may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” Id. 23 § 1915A(b). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 24 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). 25 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement of the 26 27 1 At the time Plaintiff filed the complaint, he was confined at Marin County Jail. Although he has 1 claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” “Specific facts are not necessary; the 2 statement need only give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . . claim is and the grounds upon 3 which it rests.” Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007) (citations omitted). Although to 4 state a claim a complaint “does not need detailed factual allegations, . . . a plaintiff’s obligation to 5 provide the grounds of his entitle[ment] to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a 6 formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. . . . Factual allegations must 7 be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 8 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations omitted). A complaint must proffer “enough facts to state a 9 claim for relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 570. To state a claim that is plausible on its 10 face, a plaintiff must allege facts that "allow[] the court to draw the reasonable inference that the 11 defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). 12 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two elements: (1) that a 13 right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the alleged 14 violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 15 42, 48 (1988). 16 LEGAL CLAIMS 17 The complaint includes a large number of claims against different defendants that suffer 18 from a number of different problems. The claims against two of the Defendants are plainly 19 frivolous. Plaintiff sues the District of Columbia “Corporation” for committing “fraud” by flying 20 a “globalist flag” of “no nation,” and he alleges that the District of Columbia is “owned by the 21 Bank of London” which is “owned by the United Nations.” (ECF No. 1 at 1.) Plaintiff also sues 22 the United States “Corporation,” against which he makes following allegations: 23 The District of Columbia corporation the United States of 1871 was supposed to follow the organic Constitution and could only claim 24 British Admiralty Maritime Law 10 miles outside of Washigton, D.C. . . . Congress in the District of Columbia is not following the 25 Constitution of 1786 or the Rule of Law with jurisdiction and standing. For this reason, many Americans are having their rights 26 violated. Others are being indoctrinated into a Fraudulent Corporation called the United States of 1871, and all other smaller 27 corporations are unchecked! 1 clearly lacking any factual basis. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989). Plaintiff’s 2 allegations against the District of Columbia and the United States “Corporations” clearly lack any 3 factual basis and are premised on an indisputably meritless legal theory. Therefore, they must be 4 dismissed as frivolous. 5 Plaintiff brings claims against that San Rafael Police Department and three of its officers 6 relating to Plaintiff’s arrests on two occasions. He alleges that officers John Carpenter and “John 7 Doe Two Leland” arrested him while he was driving, seized his car, brought him to jail, and 8 required him to sign papers. (ECF No. 1 at 2-3.) He also alleges that he got into an altercation 9 with Defendant San Rafael Police Officer “John Doe One” at the San Rafael Yacht Harbor and 10 was arrested. (ECF No. 1 at 3-4.) Plaintiff claims that these Defendants did not have 11 “jurisdiction” over him, and he claims they committed assault, theft, kidnapping, copyright 12 enfringement, extortion, and identity theft. (ECF No. 1 at 3-5.) Plaintiff also claims that 13 Defendant District Attorney Lori Furgoli filed false charges against him arising from these 14 incidents, which he claims constitutes “treason.” (ECF No. 1 at 5-6.) Plaintiff claims that 15 Defendant Paul Haakenson, a Marin County Superior Court Judge, improperly found him 16 mentally incompetent to stand trial, put his trial on hold, sent him to Napa State Hospital, and 17 denied his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. (ECF No. 1 at 6-7.) Lastly, Plaintiff claims that 18 Defendants Marin County and Executive Officer James M. Kim are responsible for him not 19 receiving incoming mail at the Marin County Jail, including federal tax vouchers, and for 20 improperly charging his trust account for housing costs. (ECF No. 7-8.) 21 Plaintiff made these same claims in his prior lawsuit. See Moses v. Marin County, et al., 22 No. 22-3206 JSC (PR) (ECF No. 10 at 3-10.) An in forma pauperis complaint that merely repeats 23 pending or previously litigated claims may be considered abusive of the judicial process and 24 dismissed on initial review of a pro se prisoner complaint. See Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 25 1103, 1105 n.2 (9th Cir. 1995); Bailey v. Johnson, 846 F.2d 1019, 1021 (5th Cir. 1988). 26 Consequently these claims will be dismissed. 27 CONCLUSION 1 close the file. 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 Dated: February 3, 2023 4 5 ne ACQUELINE SCOTT CORLE 6 United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 © 15 16 = 17 Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28