1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 Mikkel-Stanley Lamb, ) 9 ) Plaintiff, ) 10 ) No. CIV 24-024-TUC-CKJ vs. ) 11 ) ORDER Smith and Wamsley, PLLC, et al. ) 12 ) Defendants. ) 13 ) 14 On January 12, 2024, Plaintiff Mikkel-Stanley Lamb ("Lamb") filed a Complaint for 15 a Civil Case (Doc. 1). This Court screened the Complaint and dismissed the claims with 16 leave to amend. May 13, 2024, Order (Doc. 6). Lamb has filed a First Amended Complaint 17 ("FAC") (Doc. 8). The Court will screen the FAC. 18 19 I. Fed.R.Civ.P. 5.2 20 The Court previously advised Lamb the applicable rule provides for privacy protection 21 in documents filed with the Court. Further, the Court directed staff to redact the exhibits to 22 Lamb's Complaint pursuant to the rule and directed the Clerk of Court to docket Lamb's 23 original exhibits under seal and to publicly file the redacted document. The FAC, including 24 its attachments again contain private information. However, based on the Court's prior 25 Order, the Clerk of Court has filed this document under seal. The Court accepts the 26 document as filed under seal. 27 28 1 II. Screening Order 2 This Court is required to dismiss a case if the Court determines that the allegation of 3 poverty is untrue, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(A), or if the Court determines that the action "(i) 4 is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) 5 seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief." 28 U.S.C. § 6 1915(e)(2)(B). In dismissing Lamb's original complaint, the Court directed the Clerk of 7 Court to mail a Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights (Non-Prisoner Complaint) form 8 instead of a Complaint for a Civil Case form to Lamb. The Court will consider Lamb's FAC 9 as a general case, but also consider whether any civil rights claims have been stated. 10 11 III. Caption and Parties 12 The Court previously advised Lamb the applicable rule requires the caption of a 13 complaint to name all of the parties. Fed.R.Civ.P. 10(a). The caption of Lamb's FAC does 14 not name any Defendant; rather, the caption states "See Attached[.]" In the Defendant(s) 15 section of the form, the FAC states the following as Defendants: 16 Saguaro Trails Homeowners Association ("SGHA") 17 Platinum Management Inc. ("PM") 18 Smith and Wamsley PLLC ("S&W") 19 Kacey Scarr Wamsley ("Wamsley") 20 The Attachment to the FAC states the following additional Defendants: 21 Jason E. Smith ("Smith") 22 Sean K. Moynihan ("Moynihan") 23 Luisa Hernandez ("Hernandez") 24 Vince Roberts ("Roberts") 25 Angelina Craig ("Craig") 26 Jeanie D. Benavente ("Benavente") 27 Chandra Pennington ("Pennington") 28 FAC (Doc. 8, ECF pp. 2-3, 7-8). Because the FAC does not comply with Fed.R.Civ.P. 10(a), 1 dismissal is appropriate. Further, as the Court has found, intra, Lamb's FAC does not set 2 forth subject matter jurisdiction (including the fact the FAC does not state a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 3 claim against any state actor or jural entity), the dismissal will be without leave to amend. 4 5 IV. Lamb's Amended Complaint 6 The body of the FAC states the address of Lamb as Tucson, AZ, within Pima County. 7 Additionally, it states the addresses of all of the Defendants as Tucson, AZ and/or Pima 8 County. 9 Lamb's Complaint states the basis for federal court jurisdiction is a civil rights 10 violation. However, the Court attributes this to an incorrect form being provided to Lamb 11 and his completion/submission of that form. The Court will consider whether subject matter 12 jurisdiction has been stated. 13 The FAC alleges: 14 All violations could have been prevented if the documents that are on file with the sec of State were acknowledged. Once these documents are filed, they are considered a 15 court of record. Within this court of record is a copyright notice which is on file with the sec of State as well as the pima county recorder's office in regards to the use of the 16 MIKKEL STANLEY LAMB© Trust name (all derivatives). . . 17 Initial damages began after Platinum Management who cares for the Saguaro Trails Community Association mailed the undersigned documentation in regards to a voided 18 contract in which I addressed with a response. . . Platinum Management disregarded the documentation and proceeded to contact Smith and Wamsley PLLC. 19 FAC Attachment (Doc. 8, ECF p. 10 of 14). Upon receiving documentation via mail from 20 Smith and Wamsley PLLC, Lamb "inform[ed] Smith and Wamsley PLLC of the status of the 21 account." (Id.). Although certified mail tracking showed the location received the mail, as 22 shown by presumed mail room clerk Hernandez, S&W did not respond. 23 The FAC alleges Wamsley criminally trespassed by attaching a letter to the door of 24 Lamb's residence and, a week or so later, banged on his door. Lamb alleges law enforcement 25 also engaged in aggressive behavior, as well as deceptive questioning and intimidating 26 behavior. 27 28 1 Lamb further alleges Wamsley, Smith and Moynihan filed documents with lower 2 courts that withheld true and factual information. In Lamb's view, it appeared "as if the lower 3 court judges and officers of court [were] strategically orchestrating fraudulent acts inside the 4 court." (Id. at ECF p. 11 of 14). 5 The documents attached to the Complaint include a "LEGAL NOTICE AND 6 DEMAND . . . To: All State, Federal and International Public Officials, THIS IS A 7 CONTRACT IN ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION THIS TITLE IS FOR YOUR 8 PROTECTION[.]" two "ASSIGNMENT[S] OF LIMITED POWER OF ATTORNEY[,]" 9 "UCC Financing Statement[s]," a "HOLD HARMLESS AND INDEMNITY 10 AGREEMENT[,]" a "COMMON LAW COPYRIGHT NOTICE[,]" "Notice[s] Concerning 11 Fiduciary Relationship[,]" a "Certificate of Foreign Status of Non-resident for United States 12 Tax Withholding and Reporting (Human)[,]" a "PRIVATE REGISTERED BOND FOR 13 INVESTMENT[,]" an "AFFIDAVIT OF TRUTH[.]" See Complaint, Attachments (Doc. 9). 14 Further, the document refers to Secretaries of State for Arizona, Colorado and Virginia. 15 The documents appear to invoke legal principles (e.g., strawman; vessel in commerce; 16 Lamb was created as a trust; legal notice and demand purported to be acknowledged by 17 silence and acquiescence of the Arizona Secretary of State; purported contract without 18 inclusion of specific agreement of any person/entity other than Lamb, stating the failure to 19 timely rebut the terms is agreement; right to appeal to a twenty-five sovereign people Magna 20 Carta Grand Jury; fealty is forever rebutted by counterclaim in Admiralty) without any 21 recognized authority. 22 23 V. Requirements of a Complaint and Stating a Claim Upon Which Relief Can be Granted 24 The Court has previously advised Lamb that a complaint is to contain a "short and 25 plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief[.]" Rule 8(a), 26 Fed.R.Civ.P. Where the pleader is pro se, the pleading should be liberally construed in the 27 28 1 interests of justice. Johnson v. Reagan, 524 F.2d 1123 (9th Cir. 1975).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 Mikkel-Stanley Lamb, ) 9 ) Plaintiff, ) 10 ) No. CIV 24-024-TUC-CKJ vs. ) 11 ) ORDER Smith and Wamsley, PLLC, et al. ) 12 ) Defendants. ) 13 ) 14 On January 12, 2024, Plaintiff Mikkel-Stanley Lamb ("Lamb") filed a Complaint for 15 a Civil Case (Doc. 1). This Court screened the Complaint and dismissed the claims with 16 leave to amend. May 13, 2024, Order (Doc. 6). Lamb has filed a First Amended Complaint 17 ("FAC") (Doc. 8). The Court will screen the FAC. 18 19 I. Fed.R.Civ.P. 5.2 20 The Court previously advised Lamb the applicable rule provides for privacy protection 21 in documents filed with the Court. Further, the Court directed staff to redact the exhibits to 22 Lamb's Complaint pursuant to the rule and directed the Clerk of Court to docket Lamb's 23 original exhibits under seal and to publicly file the redacted document. The FAC, including 24 its attachments again contain private information. However, based on the Court's prior 25 Order, the Clerk of Court has filed this document under seal. The Court accepts the 26 document as filed under seal. 27 28 1 II. Screening Order 2 This Court is required to dismiss a case if the Court determines that the allegation of 3 poverty is untrue, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(A), or if the Court determines that the action "(i) 4 is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) 5 seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief." 28 U.S.C. § 6 1915(e)(2)(B). In dismissing Lamb's original complaint, the Court directed the Clerk of 7 Court to mail a Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights (Non-Prisoner Complaint) form 8 instead of a Complaint for a Civil Case form to Lamb. The Court will consider Lamb's FAC 9 as a general case, but also consider whether any civil rights claims have been stated. 10 11 III. Caption and Parties 12 The Court previously advised Lamb the applicable rule requires the caption of a 13 complaint to name all of the parties. Fed.R.Civ.P. 10(a). The caption of Lamb's FAC does 14 not name any Defendant; rather, the caption states "See Attached[.]" In the Defendant(s) 15 section of the form, the FAC states the following as Defendants: 16 Saguaro Trails Homeowners Association ("SGHA") 17 Platinum Management Inc. ("PM") 18 Smith and Wamsley PLLC ("S&W") 19 Kacey Scarr Wamsley ("Wamsley") 20 The Attachment to the FAC states the following additional Defendants: 21 Jason E. Smith ("Smith") 22 Sean K. Moynihan ("Moynihan") 23 Luisa Hernandez ("Hernandez") 24 Vince Roberts ("Roberts") 25 Angelina Craig ("Craig") 26 Jeanie D. Benavente ("Benavente") 27 Chandra Pennington ("Pennington") 28 FAC (Doc. 8, ECF pp. 2-3, 7-8). Because the FAC does not comply with Fed.R.Civ.P. 10(a), 1 dismissal is appropriate. Further, as the Court has found, intra, Lamb's FAC does not set 2 forth subject matter jurisdiction (including the fact the FAC does not state a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 3 claim against any state actor or jural entity), the dismissal will be without leave to amend. 4 5 IV. Lamb's Amended Complaint 6 The body of the FAC states the address of Lamb as Tucson, AZ, within Pima County. 7 Additionally, it states the addresses of all of the Defendants as Tucson, AZ and/or Pima 8 County. 9 Lamb's Complaint states the basis for federal court jurisdiction is a civil rights 10 violation. However, the Court attributes this to an incorrect form being provided to Lamb 11 and his completion/submission of that form. The Court will consider whether subject matter 12 jurisdiction has been stated. 13 The FAC alleges: 14 All violations could have been prevented if the documents that are on file with the sec of State were acknowledged. Once these documents are filed, they are considered a 15 court of record. Within this court of record is a copyright notice which is on file with the sec of State as well as the pima county recorder's office in regards to the use of the 16 MIKKEL STANLEY LAMB© Trust name (all derivatives). . . 17 Initial damages began after Platinum Management who cares for the Saguaro Trails Community Association mailed the undersigned documentation in regards to a voided 18 contract in which I addressed with a response. . . Platinum Management disregarded the documentation and proceeded to contact Smith and Wamsley PLLC. 19 FAC Attachment (Doc. 8, ECF p. 10 of 14). Upon receiving documentation via mail from 20 Smith and Wamsley PLLC, Lamb "inform[ed] Smith and Wamsley PLLC of the status of the 21 account." (Id.). Although certified mail tracking showed the location received the mail, as 22 shown by presumed mail room clerk Hernandez, S&W did not respond. 23 The FAC alleges Wamsley criminally trespassed by attaching a letter to the door of 24 Lamb's residence and, a week or so later, banged on his door. Lamb alleges law enforcement 25 also engaged in aggressive behavior, as well as deceptive questioning and intimidating 26 behavior. 27 28 1 Lamb further alleges Wamsley, Smith and Moynihan filed documents with lower 2 courts that withheld true and factual information. In Lamb's view, it appeared "as if the lower 3 court judges and officers of court [were] strategically orchestrating fraudulent acts inside the 4 court." (Id. at ECF p. 11 of 14). 5 The documents attached to the Complaint include a "LEGAL NOTICE AND 6 DEMAND . . . To: All State, Federal and International Public Officials, THIS IS A 7 CONTRACT IN ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION THIS TITLE IS FOR YOUR 8 PROTECTION[.]" two "ASSIGNMENT[S] OF LIMITED POWER OF ATTORNEY[,]" 9 "UCC Financing Statement[s]," a "HOLD HARMLESS AND INDEMNITY 10 AGREEMENT[,]" a "COMMON LAW COPYRIGHT NOTICE[,]" "Notice[s] Concerning 11 Fiduciary Relationship[,]" a "Certificate of Foreign Status of Non-resident for United States 12 Tax Withholding and Reporting (Human)[,]" a "PRIVATE REGISTERED BOND FOR 13 INVESTMENT[,]" an "AFFIDAVIT OF TRUTH[.]" See Complaint, Attachments (Doc. 9). 14 Further, the document refers to Secretaries of State for Arizona, Colorado and Virginia. 15 The documents appear to invoke legal principles (e.g., strawman; vessel in commerce; 16 Lamb was created as a trust; legal notice and demand purported to be acknowledged by 17 silence and acquiescence of the Arizona Secretary of State; purported contract without 18 inclusion of specific agreement of any person/entity other than Lamb, stating the failure to 19 timely rebut the terms is agreement; right to appeal to a twenty-five sovereign people Magna 20 Carta Grand Jury; fealty is forever rebutted by counterclaim in Admiralty) without any 21 recognized authority. 22 23 V. Requirements of a Complaint and Stating a Claim Upon Which Relief Can be Granted 24 The Court has previously advised Lamb that a complaint is to contain a "short and 25 plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief[.]" Rule 8(a), 26 Fed.R.Civ.P. Where the pleader is pro se, the pleading should be liberally construed in the 27 28 1 interests of justice. Johnson v. Reagan, 524 F.2d 1123 (9th Cir. 1975). Indeed, a "complaint 2 [filed by a pro se plaintiff] 'must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings 3 drafted by lawyers.'" Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010), quoting Erickson 4 v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007), per curiam. 5 The Court also advised Lamb that a plaintiff must allege "enough facts to state a claim 6 to relief that is plausible on its facts." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 7 (2007). While a complaint need not plead "detailed factual allegations," the factual 8 allegations it does include "must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative 9 level." Id. at 555; see also Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962 (9th Cir. 2009). The 10 Court also considers that the Supreme Court has cited Twombly for the traditional proposition 11 that "[s]pecific facts are not necessary [for a pleading that satisfies Rule 8(a)(2)]; the 12 statement need only 'give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds 13 upon which it rests.'" Erickson v. Pardue, 551 U.S. 89 (2007). 14 The Court also advised Lamb that the Court must take as true all allegations of 15 material fact and construe them in the light most favorable to Lamb. See Cervantes v. United 16 States, 330 F.3d 1186, 1187 (9th Cir. 2003). Nonetheless, the Court does not accept as true 17 unreasonable inferences or conclusory legal allegations cast in the form of factual 18 allegations. Western Mining Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d 618, 624 (9th Cir. 1981). 19 20 VI. Subject Matter Jurisdiction 21 The Court must dismiss a civil action if at any time it determines it lacks subject 22 matter jurisdiction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), (h)(3). Federal courts have limited subject 23 matter jurisdiction. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). 24 This Court presumes a civil action lies outside its limited jurisdiction and the burden to prove 25 otherwise rests on a party asserting jurisdiction exists. Id. Additionally, an opposing party 26 can never forfeit or waive a challenge to subject matter jurisdiction. Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 27 28 1 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006). Generally, this Court has "original jurisdiction of . . . civil actions 2 arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States" and "civil actions where 3 the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000" and diversity of citizenship 4 between the parties exists. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. 5 Article III, § 2 of the Constitution extends the judicial power to controversies . . . 6 between citizens of different states." Federal district courts have original jurisdiction over 7 cases where there is complete diversity of citizenship, i.e., between citizens of different 8 states, and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a); see also 9 Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). Indeed, 28 U.S.C. § 10 1332 "requires complete diversity – no plaintiff may be a citizen of the same state as any 11 defendant." Cady v. American Family Ins. Co., 771 F.Supp.2d 1129, 1130 (D.Ariz. 2011), 12 citing Lincoln Property Co. v. Roche, 546 U.S. 81, 82 (2005); Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 3 13 Cranch 267, 2 L.Ed. 435 (1806). Lamb, as the party asserting diversity jurisdiction, has the 14 burden of proof. Lew v. Moss, 797 F.2d 747 (9th Cir. 1986). However, the plain language 15 of the FAC demonstrates that all parties are citizens/residents of the state of Arizona. In 16 other words, complete diversity of citizenship has not been shown. The Court finds it does 17 not have subject matter jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship of this matter. 18 The Court will consider whether Lamb has stated a civil claim/action "arising under 19 the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The form of 20 Lamb's FAC purports to state a civil rights complaint. Should such a claim be stated, this 21 Court would have subject matter of the action because the claim would arise under "the 22 Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States[,]" 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, specifically, 42 23 U.S. C. § 1983. However, to state a violation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege 24 the violative conduct was committed by a government actor, as summarized by another court: 25 An individual acts "under color of state law" for purposes of § 1983 when the individual has "exercised power 'possessed by virtue of state law and made possible 26 only because the wrongdoer is clothed with the authority of state law.'" Rawson v. Recovery Innovations, Inc., 975 F.3d 742, 748 (9th Cir. 2020) (quoting West v. Atkins, 27 [487 U.S. 42, 49] (1988). Generally, private parties are not acting under color of state law. Price v. Hawaii, 939 F.2d 702, 707-08 (9th Cir. 1991). To act under color of 28 1 law does not require that the defendant be an employee of the state, but he must be "a willful participant in joint action with the State or its agents." Dennis v. Sparks, [449 2 U.S. 24, 27] (1980). "Private persons, jointly engaged with state officials in the challenged action, are acting 'under color' of law for purposes of § 1983 actions.' [Id. 3 at 27-28]. 4 Samuelson v. Jewell Sch. Dist. 8, No. 3:22-CV-1923-SI, 2024 WL 1286539, at *2 (D. Or. 5 Mar. 26, 2024). 6 7 VII. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 8 The Court will consider whether Wamsley (attorney), Smith (attorney), Moynihan 9 (attorney), Roberts (lower court judge), and Craig (clerk of a lower court) are state actors.1 10 Lamb alleges Wamsley, Smith, and Moynihan are officers of the court. They are all 11 attorneys at the law firm of Smith & Wamsley. See https://smithwamsley.com/. However, 12 as the Court advised Lamb in its June 3, 2024, Order in CV 24-028 (Doc. 8), "[a]ttorneys 13 performing their traditional functions will not be considered state actors solely on the basis 14 of their position as officers of the court." Angelico v. Lehigh Valley Hosp., Inc., 184 F.3d 15 268, 277 (3d Cir.1999); see also Hutcherson v. Smith, 908 F.2d 243, 245 n. 2 (7th Cir.1990) 16 (declining to hold that "any attorney working for or retained by a municipality automatically 17 satisfies the 'under color of state law' requirement of 42 U.S.C. § 1983"). Lamb has not 18 presented any allegations beyond these Defendants being officers of the court that convert 19 them into state actors. The Court finds Wamsley, Smith, and Moynihan are not government 20 actors for purposes of this case. 21 As to Roberts, he is a Pima County Justice of the Peace for Precinct Ten since January 22 1, 2021. See https://ballotpedia.org/Vince_Roberts_(Arizona). The Court advised Lamb in 23 its June 3, 2024, Order in CV 24-028 (Doc. 8) that "[j]udges are immune from damage 24 actions for judicial acts taken within the jurisdiction of their courts." Ashelman v. Pope, 793 25 26 27 1The FAC does not appear to claim STHA, PM, S&M, Hernandez, Benavente, or 28 Pennington are state actors. 1 F.2d 1072 (9th Cir. 1986). This is to assure that judges may exercise their functions with 2 independence and without fear of consequences. See Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 3 335, 20 L.Ed. 646 (1872); Randall v. Brigham, 74 U.S. 523 (1868). However, a "judge lacks 4 immunity where he acts in the 'clear absence of all jurisdiction' or performs an act that is not 5 'judicial' in nature. Ashelman, 793 F.2d at 1075, citations omitted. Lamb's FAC alleges 6 Wamsley, Smith, and Moynihan filed documents withholding true and factual information 7 with a lower court which would have terminated a case in the lower court. Lamb asserts it 8 "looks as if the lower court judges and officers of court are strategically orchestrating 9 fraudulent acts inside the court." FAC (Doc. 8, ECF p. 11 of 14). These conclusory 10 allegations fail to state "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its facts[,]" 11 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570, and is insufficient "to raise a right to relief above the speculative 12 level." Id. at 555. The Court finds a § 1983 claim that withstands judicial immunity has not 13 been alleged against Roberts and fails to provide this Court with subject matter jurisdiction. 14 Similarly, Lamb has failed to make any specific allegations against Craig. As such, 15 the Court finds a § 1983 claim has not been alleged against Craig and fails to provide this 16 Court with subject matter jurisdiction. 17 No claim having been adequately alleged against a state actor, the Court finds § 1983 18 does not provide this Court with subject matter jurisdiction. 19 20 VIII. Federal Question other than by 42 U.S.C. § 1983 21 Lamb's FAC states the basis for federal jurisdiction as A.R.S. § 2311, Fraudulent 22 Schemes and Practices; Willful Concealment; Classification, and A.R.S. § 33-421, 23 Recording Liens. FAC (Doc. 8, ECF p. 3 of 14). These bases are based on state law and do 24 not present a federal question. Additionally, the FAC states damages for the unlawful 25 placing of a lien and criminal trespass. FAC (Doc. 8, ECF p. 5 of 14). Criminal trespass is 26 a criminal violation based on Arizona law. See A.R.S. §§13-1502, 1503, 1504. Moreover, 27 28 1 if Lamb was seeking to state a civil claim of trespass, such a claim is also based on state law. 2 See e.g., SWC Baseline & Crismon Invs., L.L.C. v. Augusta Ranch Ltd. P'ship, 265 P.3d 3 1070, 1091 (Ariz.App. 2011). The Court finds these state law claims do not provide a basis 4 for subject matter jurisdiction. 5 As to Lamb's claim of unlawful placing of a lien, it is not clear on what basis seeks 6 to state a claim. To any extent he seeks to state a claim pursuant to A.R.S. § 33-420, False 7 documents, liability, special action; damages; violation; classification, such a claim would 8 be based on state law and would not present a federal question. Moreover, Lamb's FAC 9 refers to a number of other state statutes which, again, do not present a federal question. See 10 FAC (Doc. 8, ECF pp. 9, 12-14 of 14). The Court finds Lamb has failed to present a federal 11 questions and this Court, therefore, does not have subject matter jurisdiction over this matter. 12 13 IX. Sovereign Citizen 14 The FAC "is a classic example of 'redemptionist' or 'sovereign citizen' theory." 15 Branton v. Columbia Cnty., No. 1:15-CV-00005 DNH/TW, 2015 WL 3397949, at *3 16 (N.D.N.Y. May 26, 2015). The Ninth Circuit has held that "sovereign citizen" arguments 17 have "been consistently and thoroughly rejected by every branch of the government for 18 decades. Indeed[,] advancement of such utterly meritless arguments is now the basis for 19 serious sanctions imposed on civil litigants who raise them." United States v. Studley, 783 20 F.2d 934, 937 n. 3 (9th Cir. 1986); see also Caetano v. Kings Cnty. Sheriff, No. 21 1:22-CV-0261 JLT HBK, 2022 WL 1271344, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 28, 2022), appeal 22 dismissed, No. 22-16067, 2022 WL 18358075 (9th Cir. Aug. 17, 2022) ("To the extent 23 Plaintiff's allegations are based on a sovereign citizen ideology—in referring to his body as 24 a 'Sovereign' and a vessel—courts uniformly and summarily have rejected arguments 25 premised on such ideology as frivolous and meritless."). 26 . . . . . 27 28 1 "Theories presented by redemptionist and sovereign citizen adherents have not only 2 been rejected by the courts, but also recognized as frivolous and a waste of court resources." 3 Muhammad v. Smith, No. 3:13–CV–760 (MAD/DEP), 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99990, at *6, 4 2014 WL 3670609, at *2 (N.D.N.Y. July 23, 2014) (collecting cases). As summarized by 5 another court: 6 The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has rejected arguments premised on the sovereign citizen ideology as utterly meritless. See United States v. Studley, 783 F.2d 934, 937 7 n.3 (9th Cir. 1986). . . And "[c]ourts across the country have uniformly rejected arguments" based on the sovereign citizen ideology as frivolous, irrational, or 8 unintelligible. United States v. Staten, No. 1:10-cr-179, 2012 WL 2389871, at *3 (M.D. Pa. June 25, 2012); see also Banks v. Florida, No. 19-756, 2019 WL 7546620, 9 at *1 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 17, 2019), report and recommendation adopted, 2020 WL 108983 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 9, 2020) (collecting cases and stating that legal theories 10 espoused by sovereign citizens have been consistently rejected as "utterly frivolous, patently ludicrous, and a waste of . . . the court's time, which is being paid by 11 hard-earned tax dollars"); United States v. Wunder, No. 16-9452, 2019 WL 2928842, at *5 (D.N.J. July 8, 2019) ("legal-sounding but meaningless verbiage commonly used 12 by adherents to the so-called sovereign citizen movement" is nothing more than a nullity); Zahir v. Mountcastle, No. 21-CV-1023, 2021 WL 1143381, at *3 (E.D. Pa. 13 March 25, 2021) ("other than irrelevant statements of legal fictions, Zahir asserts no facts to demonstrate any viable cause of action for money damages. Legal sounding 14 but meaningless verbiage is nothing more than a nullity). 15 Caetano v. Depository Tr. Co., No. 1:22-CV-00679-SKO, 2022 WL 3043277, at *3 (E.D. 16 Cal. Aug. 2, 2022), report and recommendation adopted, No. 1:22-CV-0679 JLT SKO, 2022 17 WL 4664141 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 30, 2022). 18 To the extent Lamb seeks to state a claim based on an actual or implied sovereign 19 citizen theory, the Court finds such claims are meritless. 20 21 X. Conclusion 22 A review of the FAC shows Lamb has failed to comply with the Court's directives 23 (e.g., caption), has failed to state a claim which grants this Court subject matter jurisdiction, 24 and because it is frivolous and lacking an arguable basis in law, it fails to state a plausible 25 claim. The Court finds it appropriate to dismiss the FAC without leave to amend. See Lopez 26 v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 n. 8 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) ("When a case may be classified 27 as frivolous or malicious, there is, by definition, no merit to the underlying action and so no 28 1 || reason to grant leave to amend."). 3 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED: 4 1. Lamb's First Amended Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO 5 | AMEND. 6 2. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to enter a judgment of dismissal and 7 || close its file in this matter. 8 DATED this 21st day of November, 2024. ° Lat, JO saaneooee 11 Cindy K. Jor§€énso United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -ll-