Edington v. Arizona Governor's Council on Human Trafficking

CourtDistrict Court, D. Arizona
DecidedFebruary 26, 2024
Docket3:24-cv-08028
StatusUnknown

This text of Edington v. Arizona Governor's Council on Human Trafficking (Edington v. Arizona Governor's Council on Human Trafficking) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Arizona primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Edington v. Arizona Governor's Council on Human Trafficking, (D. Ariz. 2024).

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Daniel C. Edington, No. CV-24-08028-PCT-JAT

10 Petitioner, ORDER

11 v.

12 Arizona Governor's Council on Human Trafficking, Christopher Wray, Merrick 13 Garland, and Yavapai County Sheriff Department, 14 15 Respondents. 16 Petitioner, pro se, has filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus and a motion to proceed 17 in forma pauperis. 18 Under Hagans, “federal courts are without power to entertain claims otherwise 19 within their jurisdiction if they are ‘so attenuated and unsubstantial as to be absolutely 20 devoid of merit,’ [are] ‘wholly insubstantial,’ [or are] ‘obviously frivolous,’....” Hagans v. 21 Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 537 (1974) (citations omitted); see also Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 22 682–83 (1946); Gilder v. PGA Tour, Inc., 936 F.2d 417 (9th Cir. 1991). As another Court 23 has explained: 24 A complaint may be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). 25 A federal court lacks jurisdiction to consider claims that are “essentially fictitious,” “wholly insubstantial,” “obviously frivolous,” or “obviously 26 without merit.” Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 537 (1974). Thus, a claim “may be dismissed for want of subject- 27 matter jurisdiction if it is not colorable, i.e., if it is ‘immaterial and solely for the purpose of obtaining jurisdiction’ or is ‘wholly insubstantial and 28 frivolous.’” Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 513 n. 10 (2006) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted); Neitzke v. Williams, 490 1 U.S. 319, 327 n. 6 (1989) (“[a] patently insubstantial complaint may be dismissed ... for want of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of 2 Civil Procedure 12(b)(1)”); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227 n. 6 (9th Cir. 1984) (“A paid complaint that is ‘obviously frivolous’ does not 3 confer subject matter jurisdiction”). 4 Arnold v. United States, No. 19-CV-05147-SVK, 2020 WL 732995, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 5 13, 2020), appeal dismissed, No. 20-15277, 2020 WL 4873752 (9th Cir. May 22, 2020). 6 Additionally, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), 7 Congress provided with respect to in forma pauperis cases that a district court “shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines” that 8 the “allegation of poverty is untrue” or that the “action or appeal” is “frivolous or malicious,” “fails to state a claim on which relief may be 9 granted,” or “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). While much of section 1915 outlines 10 how prisoners can file proceedings in forma pauperis, section 1915(e) applies to all in forma pauperis proceedings, not just those filed by prisoners. Lopez 11 v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000) (“section 1915(e) applies to all in forma pauperis complaints”). “It is also clear that section 1915(e) not only 12 permits but requires a district court to dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint that fails to state a claim.” Id. Therefore, this court must dismiss an in forma 13 pauperis complaint if it fails to state a claim or if it is frivolous or malicious. “[A] complaint, containing both factual allegations and legal 14 conclusions, is frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). Furthermore, “a 15 finding of factual frivolousness is appropriate when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or wholly incredible, whether or not there are 16 judicially recognized facts available to contradict them.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992). “A case is malicious if it was filed with 17 the intention or desire to harm another.” Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2005). 18 Kennedy v. Andrews, 2005 WL 3358205, *2-*3 (D. Ariz. 2005). 19 Here, it is difficult to summarize Petitioner’s Petition. Petitioner claims that he is 20 the “true” inventor of the COVID-19 vaccines. (Doc. 1 at 4). Petitioner alleges that a 21 former governor of Arizona “took credit” for Petitioner’s “research”. (Doc. 1 at 5). 22 Petitioner alleges that the former governor published the research under his own name and 23 the name of a doctor Petitioner alleges the former governor was having an affair with. 24 (Doc. 1 at 6). Without specifying “who” is after him, Petitioner then alleges someone made 25 various threats against him and also physically injured him. (Doc. 1 at 6-7). Notably, the 26 former governor at issue is not named as a Defendant (in either his individual or official 27 capacity). 28 Petitioner’s allegations against Mr. Wray and Mr. Garland are completely unrelated || to the foregoing, and mention Mr. Garland not stopping “Anderson”; however, Anderson 2|| is never otherwise mentioned. (Doc. | at 5). The other two Defendants are not jural entities 3 || that can sue and be sued. 4 It appears that, at bottom, Petitioner is claiming that his research on the vaccines 5 || amounted to forced labor. (Doc. 1 at 7). In his prayer for relief, Petitioner asks this Court 6|| to order certain individuals who are not named Defendants in this case (such as the current 7\| Governor of Arizona), to cease all illegal activity and fulfill their contract obligations 8 || (though no contract is provided or referenced). 9 Under either Hagans or 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Petition for Writ of Mandamus in this case is wholly insubstantial and frivolous. Thus, it will be dismissed. The Court 11 || finds any amendment would be futile. See Bonin v. Calderon, 59 F.3d 815, 845 (1995) (futility alone justifies not granting leave to amend). Therefore, 13 IT IS ORDERED that this case is dismissed, and the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly. All pending motions are denied. 15 Dated this 26th day of February, 2024. 16 17 a 3 18 James A. Teilborg 19 Senior United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

_3-

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Bell v. Hood
327 U.S. 678 (Supreme Court, 1946)
Hagans v. Lavine
415 U.S. 528 (Supreme Court, 1974)
Neitzke v. Williams
490 U.S. 319 (Supreme Court, 1989)
Denton v. Hernandez
504 U.S. 25 (Supreme Court, 1992)
Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp.
546 U.S. 500 (Supreme Court, 2006)
Harry Franklin v. Ms. Murphy and Hoyt Cupp
745 F.2d 1221 (Ninth Circuit, 1984)
Respublica v. Oswald
1 U.S. 319 (Supreme Court, 1788)
Andrews v. King
398 F.3d 1113 (Ninth Circuit, 2005)
Lopez v. Smith
203 F.3d 1122 (Ninth Circuit, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Edington v. Arizona Governor's Council on Human Trafficking, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/edington-v-arizona-governors-council-on-human-trafficking-azd-2024.