United States District Court, D. Oregon, Portland Division
OPINION AND ORDER
MICHAEL W. MOSMAN, CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE.
se plaintiff Larbi Semiani has filed a "Motion -
Petition" (ECF #2), which this court liberally construes
as a complaint. Plaintiff also has filed an application for
leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF #1), which
this court granted on February 11, 2019. ECF #4. Under the
in forma pauperis statute, the court is obligated to
dismiss any case in which the complaint asserts claims that
are frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a
defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B). Dismissals on the basis that the complaint is
frivolous or malicious "are often made sua sponte prior
to the issuance of process, so as to spare prospective
defendants the inconvenience and expense of answering such
complaints." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319,
complaint is "frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis
either in law or in fact." Id. at 325.
Moreover, "[t]here is no abuse of discretion where a
district court dismisses under [the in forma
pauper is statute] a complaint 'that merely repeats
pending or previously litigated claims.'" Cato
v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 n. 2 (9th Cir.
1995) (quoting Bailey v. Johnson, 846 F.2d 1019,
1021 (5th Cir.1988)).
state a claim for relief, a complaint "must contain ...
a short and plain statement of the grounds for the
court's jurisdiction;... a short and plain statement of
the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief; and
... a demand for the relief sought, which may include in the
alternative or different types of relief." FRCP 8(a).
"Rule 8 does not require 'detailed factual
allegations,' but it demands more than an unadorned,
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2006)
(citations omitted). "A complaint must contain
sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a
claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'"
claims center around his inability to appear in two Los
Angeles County state court cases because he has been denied a
visa, which he claims is due to discrimination based on his
race and nation origin. He seeks monetary damages against the
United States for over $583, 600.
has filed numerous actions in federal district courts across
the country alleging the very same claims:
Since 2005, Semiani has filed well over a dozen actions in
federal courts in New York, the District of Columbia,
California, Nebraska, and the Court of Federal Claims. All of
these actions are based upon the same facts set forth in his
current pleading and seeking essentially the same relief.
Each have been promptly dismissed on various grounds,
including Semiani's lack of standing to assert claims
under federal criminal statutes, the sovereign immunity
enjoyed by the United States, lack of subject matter
jurisdiction to entertain a claim denying a request for an
immigration visa, and failure to satisfy the minimum pleading
requirements set forth in Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure. In those instances where Semiani sought
appellate review, these determinations were affirmed in every
case. Semiani v. United States, No. 1: 09-cv-387
(D.D.C.), aff'd, No. 09-5130 (D.C. Cir. 2009);
Semiani v. United States Fed. Gov't., No. 2:
10-cv- 6498 (CD. Cal. 2010); Semiani v. USA Federal
Gov't, No. 1: 10-cv-9624 (S.D.N.Y. 2010), aff'd,
No. 11-1268 (2d Cir. 2011); Semiani v. U.S. Dept. of
States, No. 2: 12-cv-1726 (CD. Cal. 2012); Semiani
v. United States, No. 1: 12-cv-598 (C.O.F.C 2012);
Semiani v. United States, No. 1: 13-cv-217 (D.D.C),
aff'd, No. 13-5083 (2d Cir. 2013); Semiani v. United
States, No. 8: 13-cv-205 (D. Neb. 2013); Semiani v.
United States Dept. of State, No. 1: 13-cv-1180 (D.D.C.
2013); Semiani v. United States, No. 1: 14-cv-463
(D.D.C 2014); Semiani v. United States, No. 1:
14-cv-875 (D.D.C. 2014), aff'd, 14-5198 (D.C Cir. 2015);
Semiani v. United States, No. 1: 15-cv-669 (D.D.C.
2015); Semiani v. United States, No. 1: 16-cv-2850
Semiani v. United States, No. 16-1724, 2016 WL
6879574, at *1 (W.D. Pa. Nov. 22, 2016) (quoting Semiani
v. United States, 5:16-cv-160, ECF No. 5 at 1-2 (E.D.
Ky. May 25, 2016)). "The Public Access to Court
Electronic Records service, www.pacer.gov, reflects that
Semiani filed 19 cases in 6 district courts, and the U.S.
Court of Federal Claims, since 2005. He pursued appeals
before the Courts of Appeals for the D.C, Second, Sixth, and
Federal Circuits." Id. at *1 n.l.
complaint in this case is duplicative of the multiple cases
he has filed in other jurisdictions. It is therefore
frivolous and malicious. Moreover, despite the fact plaintiff
has filed at least 19 cases in other federal district courts,
he has failed to perfect a valid claim for relief. Plaintiff
has been repeatedly advised that a federal court cannot
review the denial of a visa. See Semiani, 2016 WL
6879574, at *3 (citing Semiani v. United States,
5:16-cv-160, ECF No. 5 at 3 (E.D. Ky. May 25, 2016));
Semiani v. United States, No. CIV. A. 09 0387, 2009
WL 498051, at *1 (D.D.C. Feb. 26, 2009), aff'd,
575 F.3d 715 (D.C. Cir. 2009); Semiani v. United
States, No. 8:13CV205, 2013 WL 3994802, at *2 (D.
Neb. Aug. 5, 2013). Plaintiff also has been advised that the
United States generally enjoys immunity from suit, yet he has
failed to identify any way in which the United States has
waived immunity. Semiani, 2016 WL 6879574, at *3.
Despite being repeatedly advised of these deficiencies,
plaintiff persists in filing the same law suit. Because allowing
plaintiff to amend would be futile, this case is dismissed
court further certifies that any appeal of this action would
not be taken in good faith. See 28 U.S.C. §
1915(a)(3) ("An appeal may not be taken in forma
pauperis if the trial court certifies in writing that it is
not taken in good faith."). Good faith "in this
context must be judged by an objective standard" and is
"demonstrated when [the plaintiff] seeks appellate
review of any issue not frivolous." Coppedge v.
United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962). Here, an appeal
would be frivolous for the same reasons that the underlying
complaint is frivolous.
case is DISMISSED with prejudice and judgment shall be
entered to that effect.