Ramirez v. Swift ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ELIAS TORRES RAMIREZ, Case No. 24-cv-05974-SK 8 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND 9 v. VACATING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE 10 TAYLOR ALISON SWIFT, et al., 11 Defendants. 12 On August 26, 2024, Plaintiff Elias Torres Ramirez filed the instant case against 13 Defendants Taylor Swift, Travis Michael Kelce, and “Theresa Tommasi and Val.” (Dkt. No. 1.) 14 Plaintiff alleges that he and Swift are married but that Swift is not fulfilling their “Sacred 15 Relationship” due to infringement by Kelce and others. (Id. at p. 3-4.) Plaintiff seeks “getting 16 back together immediately,” control of Swift’s assets, and “certain individual’(s) be put to death.” 17 (Id. at p. 8.) 18 A trial court may dismiss a claim sua sponte under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. Omar v. Sea-Land Serv., Inc., 813 F.2d 986, 991 (9th Cir. 1987). Such a dismissal may even be made without notice where the 20 plaintiff “cannot possibly win relief.” Id. Ramirez cannot possibly win relief because his claims 21 are “fanciful, fantastic, and delusional.” See Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992) 22 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). Plaintiff’s allegations are incredible and at times 23 incomprehensible, and he seeks relief that is plainly unavailable (e.g., forcing Swift to be in a 24 relationship with him). 25 Furthermore, Plaintiff’s claim appears to be barred by the doctrine of res judicata, or claim 26 preclusion. When parties lose a case on the merits, they cannot revive it by simply filing the same 27 complaint again. Res judicata applies when a prior action involving identical parties and identical 1 issues resulted in a final judgment on the merits. City of Martinez v. Texaco Trading & Transp., 2 || Inc., 353 F.3d 758, 762 (9th Cir. 2003). In Ramirez v. Swift, No. 24-cv-02728-KAW (N.D. Cal. 3 || filed May 7, 2024), Ramirez brought claims against the same four defendants. (24-cv-02728- 4 KAW, Dkt. No. 1.) And just as in this action, Ramirez sought to reconcile with Swift, control 5 over Swift’s assets, and the immediate death of Kelce. (/d.) The Court dismissed Plaintiff's 6 || complaint with prejudice because the factual allegations were plainly frivolous. (24-cv-02728- 7 KAW, Dkt. Nos. 8-10.); See Leon v. IDX Sys. Corp., 464 F.3d 951, 962 (9th Cir. 2006) 8 (“[D]ismissal with prejudice is a determination on the merits.”) Accordingly, all requirements of g || tes judicata are satisfied. 10 The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause, by December 2, 2024, why his case should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim. Failure to respond to this Order by the deadline may 10 result in the Court reassigning this case to a district judge with the recommendation that the case B be dismissed for failure to state a claim. 4 The Court further VACATES the case management conference currently set for November 25, 2024. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 Dated: November 20, 2024 . . _Atlher lOw~ Z 18 SALLIE KIM 19 United States Magistrate Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28