Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00244/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00244-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 240
Nature of Suit: Torts to Land
Cause of Action: 28:2410 Quiet Title

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES VICTOR HOOPER,

a married man,

Plaintiff,

v.

HERBERT SANDLER; MERION O.

SANDLER; WORLD SAVINGS and LOAN,

an entity; GOLDEN WEST SAVINGS

ASSO., SERVICE CO. INC., an

entity,

 Defendants.

CIV. S-05-0244 MCE PAN PS

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

-o0oDefendants move to dismiss plaintiff’s amended complaint. 

As oral argument is unnecessary to resolve this matter, I vacate

the hearing scheduled for November 16, 2005, and make these

findings and recommendations.

On August 17, 2005, this court dismissed plaintiff’s

complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding no

Case 2:05-cv-00244-MCE -PAN Document 27 Filed 11/14/05 Page 1 of 4
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

basis for plaintiff’s reliance on this court’s admiralty

jurisdiction. Plaintiff was accorded ten days within which to

serve and file a coherent amended complaint demonstrating this

court’s jurisdiction and warned that further false or fanciful

representations (e.g., referring to individual defendants as

“U.S. Vessels”) would be sanctioned with fine or dismissal.

Plaintiff timely filed an amended complaint. Defendants

subsequently filed this motion to dismiss on the grounds the

complaint fails to demonstrate this court’s jurisdiction and

fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

Like the first complaint, the amended complaint appears

to assert state law claims for quiet title, breach of contract

and fraud against those who loaned $190,000.00 to plaintiff and

took as security an interest in plaintiff’s residential property.

Plaintiff defaulted and seeks to avoid the consequences. 

Plaintiff avers this court has jurisdiction too intervene under

28 U.S.C. § 1343 (civil rights) and § 1332 (diversity of

citizenship) but asserts no cognizable violation of federal law

and identifies the corporate defendants as California

corporations and the individual defendants as “transmitting

utilities” who are also “CO-Chairmen of the Board and CEO for

World Savings and Loan Association.” Amended Complaint, ¶¶ 15,

16. Like his prior complaint, plaintiff’s amended complaint

appeals to the authority of the Declaration of Independence, the

Treaty of Paris, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, and other

irrelevant legal sources and is replete with fanciful references

Case 2:05-cv-00244-MCE -PAN Document 27 Filed 11/14/05 Page 2 of 4
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

such as:

¶ 14: CHARLES VICTOR HOOPER is a trust identified under a

Social Security Administration EIN and under a Internal

Revenue Service EIN with Plaintiff, Charles Victor Hooper

having a monetary interest in CHARLES V. HOOPER (sic)

derived from the UCC-1 Financing Statement filed with the

Secretary of the State of California (sic) INSTRUMENTNUMBER: 0216960714. . .

¶¶ 40-41: Plaintiff alleges being an assignee of the real

property forever, an ALLODIAL FREEHOLD ESTATE at law, as a

constituent sovereign member of the posterity of the men of: 

America; and Plaintiff alleges the assignee, Charles Victor

Hooper, is not a person and taxpayer defined by

state/federal law merchant statutes and not under the Venue

and Jurisdiction of the State and Federal Executive Branch

of Government, is not a resident alien nor foreign

corporation . . . .

¶ 44: Plaintiff alleges the authority under Charles Victor

Hooper’s Declaration is executed emanates direct from the

word of the OMNIPOTENT, mot [sic] high Yahweh as appears in

the Holy Scriptures, song 68-4, which edict states . . .

“A party invoking the federal court’s jurisdiction has

the burden of proving the actual existence of subject matter

jurisdiction.” Thompson v. McCombe, 99 F.3d 352, 353 (9th Cir.

1996). Plaintiff has failed to meet this burden despite two 

opportunities. His amended complaint, like his first, is both

delusory and incomprehensible.

Accordingly, I recommend defendants’ motion be granted

and plaintiff’s amended complaint be dismissed without leave to

amend. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1).

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the

Honorable Morrison C. England, Jr., the United States District

Judge assigned to this case. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Written

Case 2:05-cv-00244-MCE -PAN Document 27 Filed 11/14/05 Page 3 of 4
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

objections may be filed within ten days after being served with

these findings and recommendations. The document should be

captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

Recommendations.” The 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: November 14, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:05-cv-00244-MCE -PAN Document 27 Filed 11/14/05 Page 4 of 4