Belle v. temecula/riverside/san Diego Superior court/nevada Township Cpurt & Commissioners & Presiding Judges ( 2011 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
__________________________________________
)
RODNEY BELLE, SR., )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 10-0616
)
TEMECULA/RIVERSIDE/SAN DIEGO )
SUPERIOR COURT/NEVADA TOWNSHIP )
COMMISSIONERS & PRESIDING )
JUDGES, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
__________________________________________)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff Rodney Belle, Sr., proceeding pro se and purporting to proceed as a
“private attorney general,” filed the complaint in this case on April 19, 2010. He names as
defendants fifty-five individuals and entities, as well as one thousand “John and Jane Does” and,
as a group, the “Temecula/Riverside/San Diego Superior Court/Nevada Township Court &
Commissioners & Presiding Judges.” Complaint (“Compl.”) at 1-6. Among the named
defendants are variety of alleged employees of the Superior Court of California, numerous
employees of the Riverside County “Sheriff Department,” the City of San Diego, and assorted
banks and other financial institutions. Id.
The substance of Mr. Belle’s complaint is, frankly, incomprehensible, consisting
of long strings of legal terms strung together without apparent logic and without connection to
specific factual allegations directed at specific defendants. The following passage is
characteristic:
Plaintiff Rodney Belle Sr., Per- Private Attorney General Bill &
Statute hereby bring this Petition for the Convening of a Federal
Grand Jury of my First Amendment Criminal Complaint Reveal
and fully Document Troubling state Temecula Coast Guard Court
of Maritime/Military Review, Judicial Misconduct Complaint and
Attachments by Certified mail to the United States Attorney
General and President Obama, Inquire under the freedom of
Information Act, Request of Credential of Presidential
Commission and [Title of Nobility] Appointment to Temecula and
Riverside/San Diego state Court Judges/Nevada Township Court to
Act as a Public official Article III District Court Judge and Article
III District Court Prosecutor Per-California States Constitution
None Ratification in 1879 and Repealed and the State Constitution
Eliminations of Justice Court to this date, Justice
Municipal/Superior Court and its Administrative Judicial officer of
the Peace, is itself Corrupt and Atrocity against the General Public
at Large has and will continue to be in Jeopardy as long as None
Appointed Article III Court Judge & Article III Court Proceeding
Guaranteed Rules of the Common Law by the 7th Amendment of
the Constitutions for united States of America.
Compl. at 11. Mr. Belle’s complaint is also accompanied by numerous exhibits, including a copy
of a very similar complaint filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of
California. See id., Ex. A. That complaint was dismissed as frivolous on November 24, 2009.
See Belle v. Deutsche Bank Trust Co., Civil Action No. 09-2563, 2009 WL 4253101 (C.D. Cal.
Nov. 24, 2009).
Since the filing of his complaint in this Court, Mr. Belle has never filed an
affidavit of service, as is required by Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. He has,
however, filed a string a documents, each entitled a “notice of joinder” and purporting to
consolidate this action with what appear to be judicial proceedings in state court. See, e.g.,
Notice of Joinder, Docket No. 2, at 6. Only one set of defendants, consisting of Catherine Cortez
Masto, Patrick Ferguson, Ted Pribnow, Brett Allen, John Munoz, Diane Comeaux, Fernando
Serrano, and Mike Willdon (“the moving defendants”), has responded to the plaintiff’s
2
complaint; they have moved to dismiss the claims against them. See State of Nevada
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint at 1. The Court advised Mr. Belle by
Order dated June 4, 2010, that the motion would be granted as conceded if he failed to oppose it
as required by Local Civil Rule 7(b). Since Mr. Belle nevertheless failed to respond, the motion
will be granted as conceded, and all claims against the moving defendants will be dismissed.
The Court is also empowered to dismiss claims sua sponte pursuant to Rule
12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure where a plaintiff’s claims are such that “the
plaintiff cannot possibly win relief.” Boritz v. United States, 685 F. Supp. 2d 113, 126 (D.D.C.
2010) (quoting Best v. Kelly, 39 F.3d 328, 331 (D.C. Cir. 1994)) (internal quotation marks
omitted). Such is the case here. Even when construing the complaint as liberally as possible, the
Court is unable to extract from the complaint any coherent claims against any of the defendants.
Consequently, the complaint will be dismissed. An Order consistent with this Memorandum
Opinion shall issue this same day.
SO ORDERED.
/s/_______________________________
PAUL L. FRIEDMAN
United States District Judge
DATE: March 31, 2011
3