United States District Court, D. Oregon
ORDER TO DISMISS
Michael H. Simon United States District Judge
an inmate at the Oregon State Correctional Institution,
brings this civil action pro se. Pursuant to an
Order entered this date, the Court granted Plaintiff granted
leave to proceed in forma pauperis. However, for the
reasons set forth below, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiffs
names as Defendants the Oregon Governor and Secretary of
State, the Multnomah County District Attorney, and two
Multnomah County Circuit Court Judges. Plaintiff filed two
separate "Complaints," the first entitled
"Complaint for Breach of Fiduciary Duty Suit in Equity
Relief in the Common Law Without Prejudice," and the
second entitled "Complaint for Declaratory Relief from
the Production of All Supported & Executed Mercantile
Civil & Commercial Law Activities Unlawfully Held in No.
02-02-31253 At the Mult. Co. Cir. Ct." Attached to the
two "Complaints" are some 250 pages of exhibits.
filings are largely incomprehensible. It is apparent,
however, that the gravamen of his action is a challenge to
his continued incarceration for a criminal conviction which
resulted in a 30-year gun-minimum sentence. Plaintiff appears
to allege that District Attorney Underhill and Circuit Court
Judges Bloch and Waller violated International Law, the
United States Constitution, and the Uniform Commercial Code
(which Plaintiff describes as the "Supreme Law of the
Planet") in connection with Plaintiffs criminal
prosecution. As to Governor Brown and Secretary of State
Richardson, Plaintiff appears to challenge their denial of
his request for clemency. By way of remedy, Plaintiff seeks
district court must dismiss an action initiated by a prisoner
seeking redress from a governmental entity or officer or
employee, if the Court determines that the action (i) is
frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which
relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against
a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b). In order to state a
claim, a plaintiff must allege facts which, when accepted as
true, give rise to a plausible inference that the defendants
violated the plaintiff s constitutional rights.
Ashcroftv. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); Bell
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556-57 (2007).
claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads
factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable
inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct
alleged." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Moss v.
U.S. Secret Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009).
"A pleading that offers labels and conclusions or a
formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action
will not do." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (internal
plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the court construes
the pleadings liberally and affords the plaintiff the benefit
of any doubt. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94
(2007). Moreover, before dismissing a pro se civil
rights complaint for failure to state a claim, the court
supplies the plaintiff with a statement of the
complaint's deficiencies. Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles
Police Dept., 839 F.2d 621, 623-24 (9th Cir. 1988);
Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1136 (9th Cir.
1987). Apro se litigant will be given leave to amend
his or her complaint unless it is absolutely clear that the
deficiencies of the complaint cannot be cured by amendment.
Karim-Panahi, 839 F.2d at 623; Lopez v.
Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 2000).
Complaints are patently frivolous, and fail to state any
claim upon which relief may be granted. Courts have
repeatedly rejected "sovereign citizen" and
"redemptionist" arguments such as those made by
Plaintiff as "utterly frivolous." See Harris v.
Colombo, No. 1:17-cv-242, 2017 WL 1206262, at *2 (W.D.
Mich. Apr. 3, 2017) (collecting cases). Moreover, the
prosecutor and state judges are entitled to absolute judicial
and prosecutorial immunity from Plaintiffs claim for damages.
See Meek v. County of Riverside, 183 F.3d 962, 965
(9th Cir. 1999) ("[i]t is well settled that judges are
generally immune from civil liability under section
1983"); Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 431
(1976) (prosecutors are immune from liability based on their
decision to initiate a prosecution). Finally, at base level,
an award of damages on Plaintiff s claims would necessarily
imply the invalidity of Plaintiffs convictions, and such a
claim "must be dismissed unless the plaintiff can
demonstrate that the conviction or sentence has already been
invalidated." Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477,
487 (1994). Plaintiff has not demonstrated such. Accordingly,
Plaintiffs Complaint must be dismissed.
these reasons, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiffs Complaint for
failure to state a claim and as patently frivolous. Because
the deficiencies of the Complaint cannot be cured by
amendment, the dismissal is WITH PREJUDICE. The Court DENIES
Plaintiffs Motions to Compel (ECF Nos. 2, 3, and 6), Motion
for Default Judgment (ECF No. 12), Motion for Summary
Judgment (ECF No. 13), Motion for Leave to Serve Additional
Interrogatories (ECF No. 15), and Motion to Order U.S.
Marshal to Deliver Complaint and Summons of Service on all
Defendants (ECF No. 16), and FINDS MOOT Plaintiffs Motion to
Dismiss Both Prematurely Filed Motions for Summary Judgment
and Motion for Default Judgment (ECF No. 14).
Court further finds that an appeal of this action would not
be taken in good faith within the ...