Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00935/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00935-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 410
Nature of Suit: Antitrust
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Anti-trust

---

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 

27 

28 

1

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

CHRIS JONATHAN EPPERSON, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

GLOBAL AMERICAN, INC., 

Defendant. 

Case No. 1:15-cv-935--BAM 

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITHOUT 

LEAVE TO AMEND 

 

SCREENING ORDER 

Plaintiff Chris Jonathan Epperson (“Plaintiff”) is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 

in this action. Plaintiff initiated this action on June 22, 2015, and consented to the jurisdiction of 

a United States Magistrate Judge on July 6, 2015. (Docs. 1, 5, 7). On July 6, 2015, the Court 

screened Plaintiff’s Complaint and dismissed it with leave to amend. (Doc. 4). Plaintiff’s First 

Amended Complaint (“FAC”) and Supplemental First Amended Complaint filed on July 13, 2015 

and July 15, 2015, respectively are before the Court for screening. Plaintiff names Global 

American, Inc. as the Defendant. His FAC and supplemental complaint consist of a list of federal 

rules/statutes and advertisements for various computer processors and motherboards. Plaintiff’s 

FAC and Supplemental Complaint are DISMISSED without leave to amend. (Docs. 8, 9). 

Case 1:15-cv-00935-BAM Document 12 Filed 10/14/15 Page 1 of 5
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 

27 

28

2

A. Screening Requirement 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court must dismiss a case if at any time the Court 

determines that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. In 

determining whether a complaint fails to state a claim, the Court applies the same pleading 

standard used under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). A complaint must contain “a short and 

plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of 

a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 

556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)).

“[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to 

relief that is plausible on its face.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). 

“[A] complaint [that] pleads facts that are ‘merely consistent with’ a defendant’s liability . . . 

‘stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief.’” Iqbal, 556 

U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557). Further, although a court must accept as true all 

factual allegations contained in a complaint, a court need not accept a plaintiff’s legal conclusions 

as true. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.

B. Plaintiff’s Allegations 

 The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s complaint and finds it must be dismissed. On July 13, 

2015, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint that states in a single paragraph: “specialize 

bio-chemist weapons against anti-terrorism within biological warfare encounter espionage around 

the world, enievident Tamperron Discreet.” FAC at pg. 1. Attached to his FAC, is a page titled 

“Final Judgment Rule: Exceptions” that lists Rule 54(b), 28 U.S.C § 1292, and 28 U.S.C. § 1651 

without any relevant explanation or analysis. FAC at pg 3. On July 15, 2015 and on July 23, 

2015, Plaintiff supplemented his FAC with a computer printout of various computer 

motherboards and processors and another list of federal statues (28 U.S.C. §§ 1291, 1292, 1293, 

1295, 256(b), 798(b), 1631, 2072). (Docs. 9, 11). Collectively, Plaintiff’s complaint and 

supplemental filings consist of an incoherent paragraph, illustrations, and a list of federal statues 

and rules. Plaintiff fails to allege any details or facts supporting his complaint and therefore, 

Case 1:15-cv-00935-BAM Document 12 Filed 10/14/15 Page 2 of 5
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 

27 

28

3

Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 

ANALYSIS 

Plaintiff’s incoherent list of allegations and lack of any factual detail violates Rule 8 of the 

Federal Rules of Procedure. 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)). 

Accord Richmond v. Nationwide Cassel L.P., 52 F.3d 640, 645 (7th Cir. 1995) (amended 

complaint with vague and scanty allegations fails to satisfy the notice requirement of Rule 8.) 

A. Rule 8 

Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure mandates that a complaint include a “short 

and plain statement of the claim,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and that each allegation “be simple, 

concise, and direct.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1) (emphasis added). A complaint that is so confusing 

that its “'true substance, if any, is well disguised’” may be dismissed for failure to satisfy Rule 8. 

Hearns v. San Bernardino Police Dep’t, 530 F.3d 1124, 1131 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Gillibeau 

v. City of Richmond, 417 F.2d 426, 431 (9th Cir. 1969)); see also McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 

1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 1996) (“Something labeled a complaint but written . . . prolix in evidentiary 

detail, yet without simplicity, conciseness and clarity as to whom plaintiffs are suing for what 

wrongs, fails to perform the essential functions of a complaint.”); Nevijel v. N. Coast Life Ins.

Co., 651 F.2d 671, 673-74 (9th Cir. 1981) (affirming a dismissal with prejudice for failure to 

comply with Rules 8(a) and 8(e), finding that both the original complaint and an amended 

complaint were “verbose, confusing and conclusory”). 

Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint and related filings fail to comply with the standards 

set forth in Rule 8. Plaintiff’s claims are not “short and plain” or “simple, concise, and direct,” as 

required by Rules 8(a) and 8(d)(1). Rather, the entire amended complaint consists of a list of 

statutes and an incoherent statement about “encounter espionage” and “enevident tampeeron 

discreet” without any additional detail. (Docs. 8, 9). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s FAC remains as 

unclear as the original complaint. 

B. Conspiracy Theories 

Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint should also be dismissed based on its patently 

Case 1:15-cv-00935-BAM Document 12 Filed 10/14/15 Page 3 of 5
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 

27 

28

4

frivolous allegations of conspiracy theories, “bio-logical warfare” and “espionage.” Neitzke v. 

Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Martin v. Sias, 88 F.3d 774, 775 (9th Cir. 1996); Cato v. 

U.S., 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995). 

“[F]ederal courts are without power to entertain claims otherwise within their jurisdiction 

if they are so attenuated and unsubstantial as to be absolutely devoid of merit, . . . wholly 

insubstantial, [or] obviously frivolous[.]” Watson v. United States, Civil Action No. 09-0268, 

2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11676 at *1 (D.D.C. Feb. 13, 2009) (quoting Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 

528, 536-37 (1974)) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); see also Steel Co. v. 

Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83, 89 (1998); Best v. Kelly, 39 F.3d 328, 330, 309 

U.S. App. D.C. 51 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (dismissal for lack of jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 

12(b)(1) warranted when claims are “clearly fanciful” and “so attenuated and unsubstantial as to 

be absolutely devoid of merit”). Thus, such claims must be dismissed. To be dismissed on this 

ground, the claims in question must “be flimsier than ‘doubtful or questionable’—they must be 

‘essentially fictitious.’” Best v. Kelly, 39 F.3d at 330 (quoting Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. at 536-

37). Claims that are essentially fictitious include those that allege “bizarre conspiracy 

theories,...fantastic government manipulations of [the] will or mind, [or] any sort of supernatural 

intervention.” Best v. Kelly, 39 F.3d at 330. 

Here, even a cursory review of the complaint reveals that Plaintiff’s claims are subject to 

dismissal as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), because they are based on indisputably 

meritless legal theories and on factual contentions that are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 

327-28. Plaintiff’s allegations of “bio-logical warfare” and “encounter espionage” are the type of 

“bizarre” and “implausible” claims that are subject to dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. See Best 

v. Kelly, 39 F.3d at 330-331 (finding that claims that are “essentially fictitious” include those that 

allege “bizarre conspiracy theories, any fantastic government manipulations of their will or mind 

[or] any sort of supernatural intervention”); see also Schultz v. Krause, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 

143370 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 12, 2011) (dismissing a claim as bizarre and unusual the plaintiff’s claims 

that defendants scanned her computer and put a GPS tracking device on her car); Bivolarevic v. 

United States CIA, No: C 09-4620 SBA, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33028 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 5, 2010) 

Case 1:15-cv-00935-BAM Document 12 Filed 10/14/15 Page 4 of 5
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 

27 

28

5

(dismissing as frivolous the plaintiff’s claims that the CIA had subjected her to “voice to skull” 

technology for many years); Newby v. Obama, 681 F. Supp. 2d 53 (D. D.C. 2010) (dismissing as 

frivolous claims that President George W. Bush and his agents stalked plaintiff and caused a 

Kinko’s employee to shut down the copying machines to prevent her from filing a mandamus 

application to enjoin the Senate); Curran v. Holder, 626 F. Supp. 2d 30, 33 (D.D.C. 2009) 

(“[C]laims relating to alleged government surveillance and harassment of her are the type of 

‘bizarre conspiracy theory’ that warrant dismissal under Rule 12(b)(1).”). 

Plaintiff’s claims are based on theories that are “essentially fictitious,” and therefore the 

Court will dismiss this entire case, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Best, 39 F.3d at 330. 

Further, Plaintiff’s allegations have no arguable basis in law or fact and this deficiency cannot be 

cured by amendment. Therefore, Plaintiff’s Complaint shall be DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE 

TO AMEND. 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER 

Plaintiff’s complaint fails to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 and fails to 

state a cognizable claim. Despite being provided with the relevant pleading and legal standards, 

Plaintiff has been unable to cure the deficiencies of his complaint. Further leave to amend is not 

warranted. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s 

complaint is HEREBY DISMISSED for failure to state a claim. 

All pending motions, if any, are terminated. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to 

close this case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: October 13, 2015 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

 

Case 1:15-cv-00935-BAM Document 12 Filed 10/14/15 Page 5 of 5