Belle v. temecula/riverside/san Diego Superior Court Commissioner & Presiding judge/justice Court Las Vegas Township

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: April 6, 2011
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2010-0726
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA __________________________________________ ) RODNEY BELLE, SR., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 10-0726 (PLF) ) TEMECULA/RIVERSIDE/SAN DIEGO ) SUPERIOR COURT COMMISSIONER & ) PRESIDING JUDGE/JUSTICE, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) __________________________________________)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On March 31, 2011, the Court dismissed a complaint filed in a separate case by

the plaintiff in this matter, Rodney Belle, Sr., against most or all of the same defendants that are

named in the instant litigation. See Belle v. Temecula/Riverside/San Diego Superior

Court/Nevada Township Commissioners & Presiding Judges, Civil Action No. 10-0616, Order

(D.D.D. Mar. 31, 2011). Like the complaint dismissed in Civil Action No. 10-0616, Mr. Belle’s

complaint in this case is largely incoherent and presents no comprehensible theory of the

defendants’ legal liability. See id., Memorandum Opinion at 1-3 (D.D.C. Mar. 31, 2011). The

Court therefore will dismiss the complaint sua sponte pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure. See Boritz v. United States, 685 F. Supp. 2d 113, 126 (D.D.C. 2010)

(sua sponte dismissal appropriate where plaintiff’s claims are such that he “cannot possibly win relief” (quoting Best v. Kelly, 39 F.3d 328, 331 (D.C. Cir. 1994)) (internal quotation marks

omitted)).

An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion shall issue this same day.

SO ORDERED.

/s/_______________________________ PAUL L. FRIEDMAN United States District Judge DATE: April 5, 2011