Tran v. Clark County Court

Opinion

1 2

3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT AT TACOMA 7 TAM TRAN, CASE NO. 3:23-cv-05278-BHS 8 Plaintiff, ORDER 9 v. 11 Defendant. 12 13 THIS MATTER is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Teresa L. Fricke’s Report 14 and Recommendation (R&R), Dkt. 4, recommending that the Court deny pro se Plaintiff 15 Tam Tran’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the case with prejudice 16 and without leave to amend as frivolous and without merit. 17 This case is one of more than 20 substantially similar cases Tran has filed in this 18 District this year. It, like the others, contains no factual allegations and no legal theory of 19 liability. Instead, Tran’s statement of claim in this case asserts in its entirety: 20 State Appeal Court case close, Clark County Court sentence me without the law and lawyer violated Civil Rights Act of 1964. Hate Crime, Race, Color, 21 National Origin outlaw and more (Pub. L 88-352, 78 Stat 241 enacted July 2, 1964) Clark County Court violate Title VI, criminal need investigation 22 and prosecutor. 1 Dkt. 1-1 at 5. Tran seeks $100 billion in damages and for the Supreme Court Chief 2 Justices to resign. Id. 3 The R&R thoroughly catalogues the deficiencies in this case, which are also 4 present in Tran’s other cases. Dkt. 4. It recommends dismissal with prejudice and without 5 leave to amend, and the denial of in forma pauperis status in the event of any appeal. 6 Tran has not objected to the R&R and it is ADOPTED. 7 Tran’s application to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED, and he shall not have 8 that status in the event of an appeal. The matter is DISMISSED with prejudice and 9 without leave to amend. 10 *** 11 Tran’s practice of filing repetitive, facially frivolous complaints, seeking to 12 proceed in forma pauperis, and refusing to amend his complaint, is abusive and 13 vexatious. The Court has previously warned Tran that if he continues to do so, he will be 14 subject to a bar order, precluding him from filing additional cases in this District without 15 prior court approval. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); see also, e.g., McGlown v. United States Dep’t 16 of Com., No. 23-cv-0049 TL, 2023 WL 1778934, at *3 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 6, 2023). It has 17 now entered a notice of intent to enter such an order, and ordered Tran to show cause 18 why it should not be entered. See Dkt. 5. 19 The Clerk shall enter a JUDGMENT and close the case. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21

22 1 Dated this 5th day of May, 2023. A 2 3 BENJAMIN H. SETTLE 4 United States District Judge

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22