8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10
11 MELVIN JOSEPH SIMMONS, Case No. 1:23-cv-00970-JLT-SAB
12 Plaintiff, ORDER WITHDRAWING PREVIOUS FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13 v. REGARDING IFP APPLICATION
14 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS EDUCATION AND WELFARE, et al., RECOMMENDING DENYING MOTION 15 FOR RELIEF, DENYING MOTIONS FOR Defendants. JOINDER, AND DISMISSING ACTION 16 FOR BEING FRIVOLOUS AND FOR FAILING TO STATE A COGNIZABLE 17 CLAIM
18 (ECF Nos. 1, 6, 7, 8, 10, 13)
19 OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN 14 DAYS
20 21 I. 22 INTRODUCTION 23 Melvin Joseph Simmons (“Plaintiff”), currently incarcerated at the Salinas Valley State 24 Prison, and proceeding pro se, filed this action on June 28, 2023. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff did not 25 pay the filing fee, and on June 30, 2023, the Court issued an order requiring Plaintiff to pay the 26 filing fee, or file an application to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 5.) The Court afforded 27 Plaintiff forty-five (45) days to comply. On July 20, 2023, Plaintiff filed three motions, but did not pay the filing fee or return an application to proceed in forma pauperis. On July 25, 2023, 1 prior to the deadline to submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis, given the tenor of the 2 motions filed, the Court issued a recommendation that the motions be denied, and that this action 3 be dismissed for failure to pay the filing fee, failure to prosecute, and failure to comply with an 4 order of the Court. (ECF No. 10.) Given the deadline to file the initial application to proceed in 5 forma pauperis had not expired, the Court noted that if it received Plaintiff’s application or filing 6 fee before August 17, 2023, the Court would consider whether it is proper to withdraw the 7 recommendation of dismissal of this action. 8 On July 28, 2023, the Plaintiff paid the filing fee in this action. On August 14, 2023, 9 Plaintiff filed what is entitled, in part, Plaintiff’s civil rights action for statutory damages against 10 United States employees. (ECF No. 13.) 11 As Plaintiff has paid the filing fee, the Court shall withdraw the pending findings and 12 recommendations. For the reasons explained below, the Court recommends this action be 13 dismissed for being frivolous, and recommends Plaintiff’s motions be denied. 14 II. 15 SCREENING REQUIREMENT 16 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 17 governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). 18 The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are 19 legally “frivolous or malicious,” that “fail[] to state a claim on which relief may be granted,” or 20 that “seek[] monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 21 1915(e)(2)(B). 22 A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 23 pleader is entitled to relief. . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not 24 required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 25 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell 26 Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Moreover, Plaintiff must demonstrate 27 that each defendant personally participated in the deprivation of Plaintiff’s rights. Jones v. 1 Prisoners proceeding pro se in civil rights actions are entitled to have their pleadings 2 liberally construed and to have any doubt resolved in their favor. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 3 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted). To survive screening, Plaintiff’s claims must be 4 facially plausible, which requires sufficient factual detail to allow the Court to reasonably infer 5 that each named defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678–79; Moss 6 v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The “sheer possibility that a defendant 7 has acted unlawfully” is not sufficient, and “facts that are ‘merely consistent with’ a defendant’s 8 liability” falls short of satisfying the plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Moss, 572 9 F.3d at 969. 10 Leave to amend may be granted to the extent that the deficiencies of the complaint can be 11 cured by amendment. Cato v. U.S., 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995). 12 III. 13 DISCUSSION 14 Although Plaintiff paid the filing fee, the Court is still required to screen the complaint. 15 See, e.g., Stith v. California, No. 123CV00947ADAGSAPC, 2023 WL 4274043, at *1 (E.D. Cal. 16 June 29, 2023) (“Screening of a prisoner's complaint will occur whether the filing fee has been 17 paid or the prisoner plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis.” (citations omitted)); Pruitt v. 18 Bobbala, No. 220CV0632KJMACP, 2023 WL 2277540, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 28, 2023) (same), 19 report and recommendation adopted, No. 220CV0632KJMACP, 2023 WL 2918299 (E.D. Cal. 20 Apr. 12, 2023). 21 The Court accepts Plaintiff’s allegations as true only for the purpose of the sua sponte 22 screening requirement under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 23 A. The Initially Filed Complaint 24 Plaintiff’s initially filed complaint U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare; 25 Social Security Administration Commissioner; Kilolo Kijakazi. (ECF No. 1 at 2.) 26 Plaintiff states in part, that Defendants are required by law to prevent or deter fraud and 27 misuse of his name Melvin Joseph Simmons, “individual entity, including the distinctive name 1 MERCHANTMAN MELVIN JOSEPH SIMMONS, including the month, day and year of this 2 permitted entity MERCHANTMAN JOSEPH SIMMONS: 2) A fiduciary duty of trust relied 3 upon and owed to each of the plaintiff Merchantman MELVIN JOSEPH SIMMONS and the 4 Plaintiff proprietorship Melvin Joseph Simmons; 3) To act primarily for the benefit of the 5 plaintiffs Merchantman MELVIN JOSEPH SIMMONS, and Plaintiff Proprietor Melvin Joseph 6 Simmons in all matters connected with the undertaking of his or her employment . . . in respect 7 to which there is a reasonable apprehension that if left outstanding it may cause perpetual 8 disability to Plaintiff Secured Party Catholic Creditor Melvin Joseph Simmons’s 9 MERCHANTMAN plaintiff MELVIN JOSEPH SIMMONS the person against whom the said 10 charging instruments are void.” (ECF No. 1 at 3-4.) Among other allegations, Plaintiff alleges 11 that Plaintiff “is a signatory heir to the original Social Compact of 1774-1776, United States of 12 America Declaration of Independence . . . [and] [p]erfect title unity Charter Merchantman . . . 13 collective capital assets, and vested taxable estate 100 shares which the plaintiff’s preferred rate 14 adjustable stock unit normally traded unity of interest.” (ECF No. 1 at 5.) 15 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court shall dismiss a complaint or portion of the 16 complaint against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity that is 17 “frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 18 1915A(b)(1).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10
11 MELVIN JOSEPH SIMMONS, Case No. 1:23-cv-00970-JLT-SAB
12 Plaintiff, ORDER WITHDRAWING PREVIOUS FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13 v. REGARDING IFP APPLICATION
14 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS EDUCATION AND WELFARE, et al., RECOMMENDING DENYING MOTION 15 FOR RELIEF, DENYING MOTIONS FOR Defendants. JOINDER, AND DISMISSING ACTION 16 FOR BEING FRIVOLOUS AND FOR FAILING TO STATE A COGNIZABLE 17 CLAIM
18 (ECF Nos. 1, 6, 7, 8, 10, 13)
19 OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN 14 DAYS
20 21 I. 22 INTRODUCTION 23 Melvin Joseph Simmons (“Plaintiff”), currently incarcerated at the Salinas Valley State 24 Prison, and proceeding pro se, filed this action on June 28, 2023. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff did not 25 pay the filing fee, and on June 30, 2023, the Court issued an order requiring Plaintiff to pay the 26 filing fee, or file an application to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 5.) The Court afforded 27 Plaintiff forty-five (45) days to comply. On July 20, 2023, Plaintiff filed three motions, but did not pay the filing fee or return an application to proceed in forma pauperis. On July 25, 2023, 1 prior to the deadline to submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis, given the tenor of the 2 motions filed, the Court issued a recommendation that the motions be denied, and that this action 3 be dismissed for failure to pay the filing fee, failure to prosecute, and failure to comply with an 4 order of the Court. (ECF No. 10.) Given the deadline to file the initial application to proceed in 5 forma pauperis had not expired, the Court noted that if it received Plaintiff’s application or filing 6 fee before August 17, 2023, the Court would consider whether it is proper to withdraw the 7 recommendation of dismissal of this action. 8 On July 28, 2023, the Plaintiff paid the filing fee in this action. On August 14, 2023, 9 Plaintiff filed what is entitled, in part, Plaintiff’s civil rights action for statutory damages against 10 United States employees. (ECF No. 13.) 11 As Plaintiff has paid the filing fee, the Court shall withdraw the pending findings and 12 recommendations. For the reasons explained below, the Court recommends this action be 13 dismissed for being frivolous, and recommends Plaintiff’s motions be denied. 14 II. 15 SCREENING REQUIREMENT 16 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 17 governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). 18 The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are 19 legally “frivolous or malicious,” that “fail[] to state a claim on which relief may be granted,” or 20 that “seek[] monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 21 1915(e)(2)(B). 22 A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 23 pleader is entitled to relief. . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not 24 required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 25 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell 26 Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Moreover, Plaintiff must demonstrate 27 that each defendant personally participated in the deprivation of Plaintiff’s rights. Jones v. 1 Prisoners proceeding pro se in civil rights actions are entitled to have their pleadings 2 liberally construed and to have any doubt resolved in their favor. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 3 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted). To survive screening, Plaintiff’s claims must be 4 facially plausible, which requires sufficient factual detail to allow the Court to reasonably infer 5 that each named defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678–79; Moss 6 v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The “sheer possibility that a defendant 7 has acted unlawfully” is not sufficient, and “facts that are ‘merely consistent with’ a defendant’s 8 liability” falls short of satisfying the plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Moss, 572 9 F.3d at 969. 10 Leave to amend may be granted to the extent that the deficiencies of the complaint can be 11 cured by amendment. Cato v. U.S., 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995). 12 III. 13 DISCUSSION 14 Although Plaintiff paid the filing fee, the Court is still required to screen the complaint. 15 See, e.g., Stith v. California, No. 123CV00947ADAGSAPC, 2023 WL 4274043, at *1 (E.D. Cal. 16 June 29, 2023) (“Screening of a prisoner's complaint will occur whether the filing fee has been 17 paid or the prisoner plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis.” (citations omitted)); Pruitt v. 18 Bobbala, No. 220CV0632KJMACP, 2023 WL 2277540, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 28, 2023) (same), 19 report and recommendation adopted, No. 220CV0632KJMACP, 2023 WL 2918299 (E.D. Cal. 20 Apr. 12, 2023). 21 The Court accepts Plaintiff’s allegations as true only for the purpose of the sua sponte 22 screening requirement under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 23 A. The Initially Filed Complaint 24 Plaintiff’s initially filed complaint U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare; 25 Social Security Administration Commissioner; Kilolo Kijakazi. (ECF No. 1 at 2.) 26 Plaintiff states in part, that Defendants are required by law to prevent or deter fraud and 27 misuse of his name Melvin Joseph Simmons, “individual entity, including the distinctive name 1 MERCHANTMAN MELVIN JOSEPH SIMMONS, including the month, day and year of this 2 permitted entity MERCHANTMAN JOSEPH SIMMONS: 2) A fiduciary duty of trust relied 3 upon and owed to each of the plaintiff Merchantman MELVIN JOSEPH SIMMONS and the 4 Plaintiff proprietorship Melvin Joseph Simmons; 3) To act primarily for the benefit of the 5 plaintiffs Merchantman MELVIN JOSEPH SIMMONS, and Plaintiff Proprietor Melvin Joseph 6 Simmons in all matters connected with the undertaking of his or her employment . . . in respect 7 to which there is a reasonable apprehension that if left outstanding it may cause perpetual 8 disability to Plaintiff Secured Party Catholic Creditor Melvin Joseph Simmons’s 9 MERCHANTMAN plaintiff MELVIN JOSEPH SIMMONS the person against whom the said 10 charging instruments are void.” (ECF No. 1 at 3-4.) Among other allegations, Plaintiff alleges 11 that Plaintiff “is a signatory heir to the original Social Compact of 1774-1776, United States of 12 America Declaration of Independence . . . [and] [p]erfect title unity Charter Merchantman . . . 13 collective capital assets, and vested taxable estate 100 shares which the plaintiff’s preferred rate 14 adjustable stock unit normally traded unity of interest.” (ECF No. 1 at 5.) 15 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court shall dismiss a complaint or portion of the 16 complaint against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity that is 17 “frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 18 1915A(b)(1). A pleading is “factual[ly] frivolous[ ]” when “the facts alleged rise to the level of 19 the irrational or the wholly incredible, whether or not there are judicially noticeable facts 20 available to contradict them.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 25-26 (1992). Section 1915 21 gives courts “the unusual power to pierce the veil” of a complaint such as that filed by the 22 Plaintiff and to “dismiss those claims whose factual contentions are clearly baseless.” Neitzke v. 23 Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989). Clearly baseless factual allegations include those “that are 24 ‘fanciful,’ ‘fantastic,’ and ‘delusional.’ ” Denton, 504 U.S. at 32-33 (quoting Neitzke, 490 U.S. 25 at 325, 327, 328). Here, the Court finds that Plaintiff has alleged claims that are frivolous, and 26 therefore, must be dismissed. To the extent it is not frivolous, Plaintiff has failed to state a 27 cognizable claim. 1 given when justice so requires. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). In this instance, the Court finds no 2 amendment could cure the deficiencies contained in the complaint. Nunes v. Ashcroft, 375 F.3d 3 805, 808 (9th Cir. 2004; Washington v. Lowe’s HIW Inc., 75 F. Supp. 3d 1240, 1245 (N.D. Cal. 4 2014), appeal dismissed (Feb. 25, 2015). Accordingly, the Court finds that granting leave to 5 amend would be futile and this action should be dismissed without leave to amend. 6 B. Plaintiff’s Motions 7 First, Plaintiff filed a motion for relief from the Court’s order issued June 30, 2023. 8 (ECF No. 6.) There appears to be no valid basis for Plaintiff’s request to be relieved from the 9 order requiring him to pay the filing fee or application to proceed in forma pauperis. In part, 10 Plaintiff states: “Mistake in law or fact . .. [r]elating to Maritime law; the rules gover[n]ing 11 contracts, torts, and worker-compensation claims or relating to commerce on or over navigable 12 waters . . . [u]nder our savings clause to preserve a vested rights or claim of Shangaiing Sailors 13 conspiracy in connection with the overt acts of piracy.” (ECF No. 6 at 2.) Further, Plaintiff has 14 now paid the filing fee and thus is no longer required to submit an application to proceed in 15 forma pauperis. 16 Second, Plaintiff filed a motion for joinder, and objections to the Court’s order. (ECF 17 No. 7.) Plaintiff’s filing states in part: “seamen may and can institute and prosecute suits and 18 appeals in their own names and for their own benefit for loss or stolen wages, and salvage of 19 imperiled maritime property . . . [n]aturally usable for travel or commerce in present current 20 condition. Net Asset Value $100,000,000,000.00[] U.S. Dollars Paid In Old Age Gold Standard 21 Bullions.” (ECF No. 7 at 2.) Third, Plaintiff filed another motion for joinder, stating in part that 22 Plaintiff “and his private ownership correlation . . . Secured Party Catholic Creditor and is the 23 real party in interest, bring this seamen’s suit civil rights action by way in motion for the already 24 foresaid joinder of issues.” (ECF No. 8 at 2.) There appears to be no valid basis for Plaintiff’s 25 motions for joinder at this stage of the proceeding, and based on Plaintiff’s complaint and review 26 of the content of the motions. 27 The Court shall again recommend these motions be denied. 1 C. Plaintiff’s Notice of Civil Rights Action 2 This filing could be Plaintiff’s attempt to file an additional claim in this action against the 3 Magistrate Judge assigned to this action. The caption of this filing in part reads, with 4 capitalization altered, “Notice: [] Civil Rights Action for Statutory Damages Against the United 5 States Employees: United States Commissioners’ Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone: Failure to 6 Perform Legal and Implied Fiduciary Duty in Due Diligence Salvor: Safe Conduct: National 7 Strategy Established to Combat Human Trafficking.” (ECF No. 13 at 1.) In part, Plaintiff states: 8 Secured Party Catholic Creditor . . . move[s] this Court . . . SOCIAL SECURITY CARD 9 enclosure plant patent secured and protected vested rights . . . right to remain free at liberty to 10 exercise or enjoyment in his freedom from slavery, peonage, forced labor and involuntary 11 servitude to pay or liquidate the debts of the United States of America, or to pay or liquidate the 12 debts of the U.S.A., Incorporated State California’s quasi-corporation Los Angeles County, or 13 Municipal Corporation City of Torrance against plaintiffs’ own free will.” (ECF No. 13 at 1-2.) 14 The Court does not find any of the contents in this filing change the Court’s analysis as to 15 the complaint or motions. Therefore, Plaintiff’s filing does not effect the Court’s 16 recommendation herein. 17 IV. 18 ORDER AND RECOMMENDATION 19 As Plaintiff has now paid the filing fee in this action, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the 20 findings and recommendations issued on July 25, 2023, (ECF No. 10), are WITHDRAWN. 21 Plaintiff’s complaint contains factual allegations that are frivolous, and the Court finds 22 the claims alleged in the complaint are incapable of being cured by amendment so granting leave 23 to amend would be futile. Ebner v. Fresh, Inc., 838 F.3d 958, 968 (9th Cir. 2016). The Court 24 further finds that Plaintiff’s motion for relief, and motions for joinder, have no proper basis in 25 fact or law, and should be denied. Finally, Plaintiff’s notice filed on August 14, 2023, does not 26 change the Court’s analysis concerning the frivolous nature of the complaint, nor the findings 27 concerning the motions. 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 2 1. Plaintiff's complaint be dismissed without leave to amend pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 3 1915A(b)(1) as frivolous, and for failing to state a cognizable claim; 4 2. Plaintiff's motion for relief (ECF No. 6) be DENIED; 5 3. Plaintiff's motion for joinder (ECF No. 7) be DENIED; 6 4. Plaintiff's motion for joinder (ECF No. 8) be DENIED; and 7 5. This action be DISMISSED and CLOSED. 8 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the district judge assigned to this 9 | action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and this Court’s Local Rule 304. Within fourteen 10 | (14) days of service of this recommendation, Plaintiff may file written objections to this 11 | findings and recommendations with the court. Such a document should be captioned 12 | “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The District Judge will 13 review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 14 | 636(b)(1)(C). Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may 15 | result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) 16 | (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 17 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. FA. ee 19 | Dated: _ August 18, 2023 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28