Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02575/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02575-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 18:241 Conspiracy Against Citizen Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN PAUL MARSHALL,

Plaintiff, CIV. S-05-2575 LKK GGH PS

vs.

UNITED NATIONS, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Presently pending before the court are motions to dismiss filed defendants City of

Sacramento, the State of California, and the United States. Plaintiff has filed an opposition. On

February 15, 2006, the court determined that oral argument was not necessary and that it would

take the motions under submission and decide them on the papers. The court now addresses each

motion in turn.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed this action on December 20, 2005, alleging civil rights violations,

fraud, and misrepresentation, against defendants United Nations, United States, State of

California, and City of Sacramento. The latter three defendants have filed motions to dismiss. 

Plaintiff’s 325 page complaint is rambling and unintelligible, but appears to claim that

defendants violated his rights from 1991 to 2005 while he was trying to exercise his rights under

Case 2:05-cv-02575-LKK -GGH Document 26 Filed 04/12/06 Page 1 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

national and international law. He claims he was forced to expend funds to travel to the United

Nations in Switzerland based on his complaints of torture. Compl. ¶ 17. Plaintiff concedes that

he previously filed an action in this court in 1993, alleging the same facts and subject areas of

law against the United States. Compl. at ¶ 39. 

DISCUSSION

Although the three motions raise distinct grounds for relief, the one basis which

they all have in common and which the court finds readily apparent from a reading of the

complaint, is its failure to state a claim, so much so that it is patently frivolous and the court

lacks jurisdiction.

A federal court is a court of limited jurisdiction, and may adjudicate only those

cases authorized by the Constitution and by Congress. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co,

511 U.S. 375, 377, 114 S. Ct. 1673, 1675 (1994). U.S. Const. Art. III, § 1 provides that the

judicial power of the United States is vested in the Supreme Court, “and in such inferior Courts

as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” Congress therefore confers

jurisdiction upon federal district courts, as limited by U.S. Const. Art. III, § 2. See Ankenbrandt

v. Richards, 504 U.S. 689, 697-99, 112 S. Ct. 2206, 2212 (1992). Lack of subject matter

jurisdiction may be raised at any time by either party or by the court. See Attorneys Trust v.

Videotape Computer Products, Inc., 93 F.3d 593, 594-95 (9th Cir. 1996).

The basic federal jurisdiction statutes, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 & 1332, confer “federal

question” and “diversity” jurisdiction, respectively. Statutes which regulate specific subject

matter may also confer federal jurisdiction. See generally, W.W. Schwarzer, A.W. Tashima & J.

Wagstaffe, Federal Civil Procedure Before Trial § 2:5. 

“The presumption is that a federal court lacks jurisdiction in a particular case until

it has been demonstrated that jurisdiction over the subject matter exists.” 13 Charles A. Wright,

Arthur R. Miller & Edward H. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure § 3522 at 62 (1984). 

Plaintiff bears the burden of proof for establishing jurisdiction. See, e.g., Sopcak v. Northern

Case 2:05-cv-02575-LKK -GGH Document 26 Filed 04/12/06 Page 2 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

3

Mountain Helicopter Serv., 52 F.3d 817, 818 (9th Cir.1995); Thornhill Pub. Co. v. General Tel.

& Electronics Corp., 594 F.2d 730, 733 (9th Cir.1979). Unless a complaint presents a plausible

assertion of a substantial federal right, a federal court does not have jurisdiction. See Bell v.

Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 682, 66 S. Ct. 773, 776 (1945). A federal claim which is so insubstantial as

to be patently without merit cannot serve as the basis for federal jurisdiction. See Hagans v.

Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 587-38, 94 S. Ct. 1372, 1379-80 (1974); Apple v. Glenn, 183 F.3d 477,

479 (6th Cir.1999) (“a district court may, at any time, sua sponte dismiss a complaint for lack of

subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

when the allegations of a complaint are totally implausible, attenuated, unsubstantial, frivolous,

devoid of merit, or no longer open to discussion.”) 

 A less stringent examination is afforded pro se pleadings, Haines v. Kerner, 404

U.S. 519, 520, 92 S. Ct. 594, 595, 30 L. Ed. 2d 652 (1972), but simple reference to federal law

does not create subject-matter jurisdiction. Avitts v. Amoco Prod. Co., 53 F.3d 690, 694 (5th

Cir.1995). Subject-matter jurisdiction is created only by pleading a cause of action that is within

the court’s original jurisdiction. Id.

The mostly incomprehensible amended complaint presents no plausible basis for

federal question jurisdiction. The facts alleged apparently concern, inter alia, plaintiff’s attempts

to recover expenses incurred for violation of his civil rights through defendants’ failures in

processing of criminal charges and complaints, criminal official misconduct, and administrative

inquiries and hearings in regard to plaintiff’s claims of torture which he brought to the United

Nations. Compl. at ¶ 17. In the same paragraph, plaintiff discusses the United Nations’ attempts

to prevent plaintiff from using his funds and “trying to fix needed dental work to maintain his

employability.” Id. Another example of unintelligible pleading is the claim that “[l]aw

enforcement, government officials, employers, human/civil rights organizations, legal

practitioners, and others failure to act, continual misrepresentation, and denial of the plaintiff’s

truthful claims of 24 hour a day 7 day a week violent harassment, antics, criminal acts, and abuse

Case 2:05-cv-02575-LKK -GGH Document 26 Filed 04/12/06 Page 3 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

4

of mind control are further violations which also continues to toll the statute of limitations!” Id.

at ¶ 26. Elsewhere, plaintiff alleges that he and his partner “suffered loss in ‘credit’ and income

back in1991 after the telephone sabotage to business and just recently in 2004 as continued acts

to retaliate for and to further hinder civil/human/legal rights efforts I.e. the September 2004

contact with the Legal Aid Society (LAS).” Id. at ¶ 46. Plaintiff has not linked any defendants to

any acts, and has also failed to state in a comprehensible manner how any of his rights were

violated. In fact, the aforementioned paragraphs are probably the most intelligible of the 325

page complaint.

 When a complaint fails to comply with the requirements of Rule 8(a), the district

court has the power, on motion or sua sponte, to dismiss the complaint or to strike those parts of

the complaint that are redundant or immaterial. Simmons v. Abruzzo, 49 F.3d 83, 86 (2d

Cir.1995). Such a dismissal without leave to amend is rarely entered, and is reserved for “cases

in which the complaint is [] confused, ambiguous, vague, otherwise unintelligible. . . .” Cf.

Omar v. Sea-Land Service, Inc., 813 F.2d 986, 991 (9th Cir. 1987) (observing that trial court may

dismiss a claim sua sponte pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) without notice “where the

claimant cannot possibly win relief.”). This case appears to be the exceptional case where

dismissal would be appropriate pursuant to Rule 8, without granting leave to amend. 

 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 sets forth general rules of pleading in the Federal Courts. 

Complaints are required to set a forth (1) the grounds upon which the court’s jurisdiction rests,

(2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing entitlement to relief; and (3) a demand for 

the relief plaintiff seeks. Rule 8 requires “sufficient allegations to put defendants fairly on notice

of the claims against them.” McKeever v. Block, 932 F.2d 795, 798 (9th Cir. 1991). 

The complaint satisfies none of the above requirements. There is no ground for

jurisdiction. There is no short and plain statement of plaintiffs’ claims. There is no demand for

relief. Even if the factual elements of the cause of action are present, but are scattered

throughout the complaint and are not organized into a “short and plain statement of the claim,”

Case 2:05-cv-02575-LKK -GGH Document 26 Filed 04/12/06 Page 4 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

 The United Nations has not made an appearance in this case; however, due to the patent 1

frivolity of the complaint which leaves the court without jurisdiction, this defendant will also be

dismissed sua sponte with dismissal of the complaint. See Tyler v. Carter, 151 F.R.D. 537, 540

(S.D.N.Y. 1993) (holding that fantastic or delusional claims asserted by a fee-paying plaintiff

may be subject to sua sponte dismissal by a district court under Rule 12 (b)(6) because paying

filing fee should not give plaintiff “license to consume limited judicial resources and put

defendants to effort and expense”).

5

dismissal for failure to satisfy Rule 8(a)(2) is proper. McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1178

(9th Cir. 1996) (stating that a complaint should set forth “who is being sued, for what relief, and

on what theory, with enough detail to guide discovery” (emphasis added)). A complaint that fails

to comply with rules 8(a) and 8(e) may be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.

41(b). Rule 8; Nevijel v. North Coast Life Ins. Co., 651 F.2d 671, 673 (9th Cir. 1981)). Further, 

“[t]he propriety of dismissal for failure to comply with Rule 8 does not depend on whether the

complaint is wholly without merit,” McHenry 84 F.3d at 1179. 

The complaint in this action illustrates the “unfair burdens” imposed by

complaints, “prolix in evidentiary detail, yet without simplicity, conciseness and clarity” which

“fail to perform the essential functions of a complaint.” McHenry , 84 F.3d at 1179-80. The

court concludes that the complaint is frivolous, insubstantially invokes federal subject matter

jurisdiction, and cannot be amended to state a claim for which relief can be granted.

In addition to the fact that the complaint is patently frivolous, it is duplicative of

case number Civ.S. 93-1372 WBS PAN, which, although dismissed on other grounds, contained

the same claims against the United States. Although this case contains additional defendants not

named in that prior case, the claims are the same.1

While the court ordinarily would permit a pro se plaintiff to amend, amendment 

to cure defective jurisdictional allegations is proper only to correct “incorrect statements about

jurisdiction that actually exists, and not defects in the jurisdictional facts themselves.” Bull HN

Information Systems Inc. v. Hutson, 184 F.R.D. 19, 22 (D.Mass. 1999) (citing Newman-Green,

Inc. v. Alfonzo-Larrain, 490 U.S. 826, 109 S. Ct. 2218 (1989)). Moreover, in any event, leave to

Case 2:05-cv-02575-LKK -GGH Document 26 Filed 04/12/06 Page 5 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

6

amend should not be granted where it appears amendment would be futile. See Cahill v. Liberty

Mut. Ins. Co., 80 F.3d 336 (9th Cir. 1996). In this case, the court has concluded that amendment

of the complaint would be futile.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, IT IS RECOMMENDED that the motions to dismiss filed by

defendants City of Sacramento on January 23, 2006, the United States on February 1, 2006, and

the State of California on February 6, 2006, be granted and this action be dismissed with

prejudice. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within ten

(10) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections

shall be served and filed within ten (10) days after service of the objections. The parties are

advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the

District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: 4/11/06

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

 U. S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:076

Marshall2575.mtd.wpd

Case 2:05-cv-02575-LKK -GGH Document 26 Filed 04/12/06 Page 6 of 6