Epperson v. United States Congress

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHRIS JONATHAN EPPERSON, No. 1:23-cv-01687-KES-SKO

12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION THAT PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT BE 13 v. DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND 14 UNITED STATES CONGRESS, THE REPUBLICAN PARTY, HOUSE OF TWENTY-ONE DAY DEADLINE 15 REPRESENTATIVES, BILL CLINTON, BARACK OBAMA, DONALD TRUMP, 16 GEORGE BUSH,

17 Defendants. 18

19 20

21 Plaintiff Chris J. Epperson, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a complaint on 22 December 5, 2023. (Doc. 1). Upon reviewing the complaint, the Court concluded that it failed to 23 state any cognizable claims and granted Plaintiff the option to file a First Amended Complaint, to 24 stand on his current complaint, or to file a notice of voluntary dismissal. (Doc. 9). Plaintiff 25 subsequently filed a First Amended Complaint (Doc. 11) and various notices (Docs. 14, 15, 16) 26 27 28 1 related to the First Amended Complaint.1 The Court concludes that the First Amended Complaint 2 fails to state any cognizable claims and recommends dismissing it without leave to amend. 3 I. SCREENING REQUIREMENT 4 In cases where the plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court is required to 5 screen each case and shall dismiss the case at any time if the Court determines that the allegation 6 of poverty is untrue, or that the action or appeal is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim 7 upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune 8 from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); see also Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th 9 Cir. 1995) (district court has discretion to dismiss in forma pauperis complaint); Barren v. 10 Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193 (9th Cir. 1998) (affirming sua sponte dismissal for failure to state a 11 claim). If the Court determines that a complaint fails to state a claim, leave to amend may be 12 granted to the extent that an amendment may cure the complaint’s deficiencies. Lopez v. Smith, 13 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 14 In reviewing the pro se complaint, the Court is to liberally construe the pleadings and 15 accept as true all factual allegations contained in the complaint. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 16 94 (2007). The Court, however, need not accept a plaintiff’s legal conclusions as true. Iqbal, 556 17 U.S. at 678. “Where a complaint pleads facts that are ‘merely consistent with’ a defendant’s 18 liability, it ‘stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of ‘entitlement to relief.’” 19 Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557). 20 II. SUMMARY OF PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT 21 A. First Amended Complaint 22 On the first page of the First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff lists himself as the plaintiff 23 and the “United States Congress, the Republican Party, and the House of Representatives” as the 24 defendants. (Doc. 11 at 1). On pages two and three of the complaint, Plaintiff lists George W. 25 Bush, Barack H. Obama, Richard M. Nixon, and Lyndon B. Johnson as the defendants. (Doc. 11 26 1 One of the documents Plaintiff has filed is titled “Second Amended Complaint,” though it only contains a copy of 27 the journal article, “The Classified Information Procedures Act (CIPA) and Suspected Terrorists in Civilian Courts: Subject to the Most Exacting Demands of Justice?” The Court will interpret this as supplementary briefing for 28 Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint. 1 at 2-3). Plaintiff has also attached a civil cover sheet to his complaint where he lists the United 2 States Congress, the Republican Party, and the House of Representatives as the defendants. (Doc. 3 11-1 at 1). On page four, Plaintiff lists Vladimir Putin, a citizen of Moscow, Russia, as the 4 defendant. (Doc. 11 at 40). 5 Plaintiff lists the basis for jurisdiction as both “Federal question” and “Diversity of 6 citizenship.” (Doc. 11 at 3). He identifies “Rev St. 5511.1978.1979,5510,” “14 Stat. 27, Ch. 31,” 7 and “16 Stat. 140, Ch. 114” as the specific federal statutes at issue in the case. (Doc. 11 at 4). On 8 the civil cover sheet, Plaintiff cites 50 U.S. (2011) as the relevant statute and describes the cause 9 of action as “Seditious Conspiracy.” (Doc. 11-1). Plaintiff also provided the following statement 10 of the claim: “September 24, 1980 gun powder – plot of the Constitution laws had been violated 11 by the actions of the state legislature in 1961. November 30, 1963 Executive Order 11130 12 assacination ploted character for figure of speech John F. Kennedy.” (Doc. 11 at 5) (errors in 13 original). Plaintiff states the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 because “[t]he defendant 14 owes in the amount at stake 500,000,000 fiscal year of The Production Act of 1950.” (Doc. 11 at 15 5). 16 For relief, Plaintiff requests “[t]he 25th section of the Judiciary Act of 1789, brought under 17 the Constitution of the United States. Where prohibition is against State laws impairing the 18 obligation of contracts 500,000,000 fiscal year Executive Order 11478.” (Doc. 11 at 6). He also 19 notes the request in the complaint is a class action with a “400%” demand.” (Doc. 11-1). 20 III. DISCUSSION 21 A. Legal Standard 22 Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states that a complaint must contain “a 23 short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. 24 P. 8(a)(2). The complaint must contain “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 25 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting 26 Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “Taken together, Iqbal and Twombly 27 require well-pleaded facts, not legal conclusions that plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief. 28 The plausibility of a pleading thus derives from its well-pleaded factual allegations.” Whitaker v. 1 Tesla Motors, Inc., 985 F.3d 1173, 1176 (9th Cir. 2021) (cleaned up). Detailed factual allegations 2 are not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 3 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell 4 Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). “Although a pro se litigant . . . may be 5 entitled to great leeway when the court construes his pleadings, those pleadings nonetheless must 6 meet some minimum threshold in providing a defendant with notice of what it is that it allegedly 7 did wrong.” Brazil v. United States Dep't of the Navy, 66 F.3d 193, 199 (9th Cir. 1995). A 8 complaint may be dismissed as a matter of law for failure to state a claim based on (1) the lack of 9 a cognizable legal theory; or (2) insufficient facts under a cognizable legal theory. See Balistreri 10 v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). The plaintiff must allege a minimum 11 factual and legal basis for each claim that is sufficient to give each defendant fair notice of what 12 the plaintiff’s claims are and the grounds upon which they rest. See, e.g., Brazil v. U.S. Dep’t of 13 Navy, 66 F.3d 193, 199 (9th Cir. 1995); McKeever v. Block, 932 F.2d 795, 798 (9th Cir. 1991). 14 A complaint will be considered frivolous, and therefore subject to dismissal under § 15 1915(e)(2)(B), “where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Nietzke v. Williams, 490 16 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); see also Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32–33 (1992) (“At the same 17 time that it sought to lower judicial access barriers to the indigent, however, Congress recognized 18 that ‘a litigant whose filing fees and court costs are assumed by the public, unlike a paying 19 litigant, lacks an economic incentive to refrain from filing frivolous, malicious, or repetitive 20 lawsuits.’”). A federal court cannot properly sua sponte dismiss an action commenced in forma 21 pauperis if the facts alleged in the complaint are merely “unlikely.” Denton, 504 U.S. at 33. 22 However, a complaint may be properly dismissed sua sponte if the allegations are found to be 23 “fanciful,” “fantastic,” or “delusional,” or if they “rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly 24 incredible.” Id. at 32–33. If a case is classified as frivolous, “there is, by definition, no merit to 25 the underlying action and so no reason to grant leave to amend.” Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 26 1127 n. 8 (9th Cir. 2000). 27 B. Analysis 28 Plaintiff’s complaint is insufficient under Rule 8. A complaint is required to contain facts 1 sufficient to demonstrate a defendant is liable for the alleged conduct (Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678), 2 and it must be written so a defendant can respond to the claims. Cafasso, U.S. ex rel. v. General 3 Dynamics C4 Systems, Inc., 673 F.3d 1047, 1059 (9th Cir. 2011). Plaintiff neither lists any 4 discernible factual allegations in the complaint, nor establishes how any defendant’s actions 5 violated Plaintiff’s rights. Without any discernible factual allegations, this Court cannot determine 6 what Plaintiff alleges occurred and whether any of the listed defendants may be liable for such 7 conduct. Courts are to construe pro se pleadings liberally, but “a plaintiff nonetheless must allege 8 a minimum factual and legal basis for each claim that is sufficient to give each defendant fair 9 notice of what plaintiff's claims are and the grounds upon which they rest.” Perez v. Unknown, 10 No. CV 18-08535 ODW (AFM), 2018 WL 6025844, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 16, 2018) (citing 11 Brazil, 66 F.3d at 199). Plaintiff has not done so here. 12 Plaintiff’s complaint is generally incoherent. Plaintiff vaguely asserts his cause of action 13 is related to the “assassination plot” of former President John F. Kennedy,” and includes Vladimir 14 Putin as a defendant. He appears to suggest various defendants, including deceased former 15 presidents, have taken part in a seditious conspiracy, which amounts to a fanciful allegation. The 16 Court has previously given Plaintiff the opportunity to amend his complaint, but he has yet to file 17 a comprehensible complaint. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s complaint should be dismissed. See Sameer 18 v. Khera, No. 1:17-cv-01748-DAD-EPG, 2018 WL 6338729, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2018), 19 appeal dismissed as frivolous, No. 19-15011, 2019 WL 7425404 (9th Cir. Aug. 27, 2019) 20 (dismissing the case with prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction as “the only appropriate 21 response” to “fanciful allegations” in complaint that “alleges the existence of a vast conspiracy 22 bent on plaintiff’s destruction”); Ayres v. Obama, Civil No. 13–00371 SOM/RLP, 2013 WL 23 5754953, at *2 (D. Hawai’i Oct. 22, 2013) (allegations that FBI implanted biochips in plaintiff 24 and her family to turn them into “a living vegetable or a New World Order slave” were “so 25 ‘fantastic’ and ‘fanciful’ as to be clearly baseless”); Bivolarevic v. U.S. CIA, No. C 09-4620 SBA, 26 2010 WL 890147, at *1–2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 8, 2010) (court lacked jurisdiction over claims that 27 CIA subjected plaintiff to “voice to skull technology” as a “mind control weapon”). 28 1 IV. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION 2 Based on the foregoing, IT IS RECOMMENDED that: 3 1. Plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed, without leave to amend; and 4 2. The Clerk of the Court be instructed to close the case. 5 These findings and recommendation will be submitted to the United States district judge 6 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within twenty- 7 one (21) days after being served with these findings and recommendation, Plaintiff may file 8 written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 9 Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within 10 the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 11 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13

14 Dated: April 3, 2024 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28