(PC) Paul E. Duran v. Longoria

Opinion

PAUL EDWARD DURAN., Case No. 1:20-cv-00289-HBK (PC)

Plaintiff, ORDER STRIKING IMPROPER PLEADING

v. (Doc. No. 56)

Defendant. On February 2, 2024, Plaintiff filed a pleading titled “Motion Declining the California Attorney Generals [sic] Offer to Settel [sic] Case. and, First time Notice to the Court of Incorporation status involves reasons for declining state.” (Doc. No. 56, “Motion”). The pleading, while styled as a motion, essentially consists of a letter “informing the Court and the California Deputy Attorney General ‘Jacqueline Kellberg’” that Plaintiff is declining a proposed stipulation for voluntary dismissal with prejudice of the instant case because the stipulation is “in stark contrast to [his] current filings for sovereignty as an ecclesiastical Incorporation status that was obtained in the probate court, Thirteenth Judicial District Court Sandoval County of New Mexico . . .” (Id. at 2). To the extent discernible, Plaintiff asserts that due to a recent inheritance from his mother and his status as a sovereign citizen, he cannot enter the proposed stipulation with the Attorney General’s Office. (Id. at 3-6). At the outset, the Court notes that this case proceeds only on Plaintiff’s First Amendment free exercise of religion claim against Defendant Longoria. (See Doc. Nos. 27, 30). The Court will not tolerate any attempt by Plaintiff to interject additional claims based upon Plaintiff's asserted status as a sovereign citizen. Indeed, numerous courts across the country “have uniformly rejected arguments” based on the sovereign citizen ideology as frivolous, irrational, or unintelligible. United States v. Staten, No. 1:10-cr-179, 2012 WL 2389871, at *3 (M.D. Pa. June 25, 2012) (collecting cases). Similarly, the Ninth Circuit has rejected arguments premised on the ideology as “utterly meritless.” See United States v. Studley, 783 F.2d 934, 937 n.3 (9th Cir. 1986). Additionally, Plaintiff is advised that any motions requesting relief must “state with particularity the grounds for seeking the order[,]” and “state the relief sought[,]” which □□□□□□□□□□ pleading fails to do. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(b). Plaintiff's pleading seeks no relief from the Court and instead “inform[s]” the Court of the reasons why Plaintiff is declining a proposed settlement offer. Because Plaintiffs pleading fails to comport with this Court’s procedural rules and local rules of which Plaintiff was advised, the Court will order it stricken. (See Doc. No. 3 at C, E, F advising pro se prisoner of Fed. R. Civ. P. 7, Local Rules 131, 133). Accordingly, it is ORDERED: The Clerk of Court is directed to strike Plaintiffs pleading which is improperly styled as a “Motion” (Doc. No. 56) for the reasons set forth above and terminate it as a pending motion from the docket. Dated: __ February 8, 2024 Mihaw. Wh. foareh Zaskth HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE