Ishma'el v. Blinken

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: May 14, 2025
• Docket: 3:24-cv-09432
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 MELCHIZEDEK ISHMA’EL, Case No. 24-cv-09432-TLT

8 Plaintiff, ORDER OF DISMISSAL v. 9

10 ANTONY J. BLINKEN, et al., Defendants. 11

12 INTRODUCTION 13 Plaintiff Melchizedek Ishma’el, a California state prisoner, filed this civil rights action 14 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983. Dkt. No. 3. Plaintiff’s complaint is now before the Court for 15 screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1915A. The complaint will be dismissed for failure to 16 state a claim. 17 Plaintiff’s application to proceed In Forma Pauperis (IFP) has been granted by separate 18 order. 19 DISCUSSION 20 A. Standard of Review 21 A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a prisoner seeks 22 redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. 23 § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any cognizable claims and dismiss any claims 24 that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seek 25 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), 26 (2). Pro se pleadings must, however, be liberally construed. See United States v. Qazi, 975 F.3d 27 989, 993 (9th Cir. 2020). 1 claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). “Specific facts are not 2 necessary; the statement need only “‘give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the 3 grounds upon which it rests.’” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (citations omitted). 4 “[A] plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief’ requires more 5 than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not 6 do. . .. Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” 7 Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations omitted). A complaint must 8 proffer “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 570. All or part 9 of a complaint filed by a prisoner may be dismissed sua sponte if the prisoner’s claims lack an 10 arguable basis in either law or in fact. 11 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: (1) 12 that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the 13 alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West v. 14 Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 15 If a court dismisses a complaint for failure to state a claim, it should “freely give 16 leave” to amend “when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). A court has discretion to 17 deny leave to amend due to “undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, 18 repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendment previously allowed undue prejudice to the 19 opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, [and] futility of amendment.” 20 Leadsinger, Inc. v. BMG Music Pub., 512 F.3d 522, 532 (9th Cir. 2008). 21 B. Analysis 22 Plaintiff names as defendants Anthony Blinken, former United States Secretary of State; 23 Merrick Garland, former United States Attorney General; and Shirley Weber, California Secretary 24 of State. He alleges as follows: he was deprived of liberty without due process of law in violation 25 of the Fifth Amendment. On March 30, 2022, plaintiff was naturalized as a citizen of the Moorish 26 National Republic Federal Government North East Amexem Territories and Dominions. He sent 27 his naturalization documents to Blinken and Garland as well as to the Moroccan Ambassador in 1 federal government agencies are negligent and obstructing justice and depriving him of liberty 2 || without due process because he is a descendent of the Moroccan Empire and a citizen of the 3 || Moorish nation yet still in the United States’s active tangible territorial jurisdiction authority. He 4 alleges defendants purposely caused a delay in his naturalization to a foreign government. Plaintiff 5 seeks damages and that his naturalization documents be processed. 6 Plaintiff has failed to state a federal or constitutional claim pursuant to section 1983 or any 7 other cause of action. Two of the defendants are federal actors and not acting under color of state 8 law. Plaintiff has not identified any conduct taken or not taken by any defendant that violated any 9 || right. There is no federal statutory or constitutional right to have one’s membership in the Moorish 10 || National Republic Federal Government North East Amexem Territories and Dominions be 11 recognized by any federal or state entity. 12 Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim. After careful consideration of whether plaintiff 5 13 could amend the complaint to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, the Court finds that 14 || plaintiff cannot. Leave to amend will not be provided because amendment would be futile. 3 15 CONCLUSION 16 For the foregoing reasons, the case is dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim 3 17 upon which relief may be granted. The Clerk shall enter judgment and close the file. IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 || Dated: May 14, 2025 20

TRINA 22 United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28