Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00446/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00446-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil 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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ADRIAN MOON, 

Plaintiff,

v.

O'NEILL, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:15-cv-00446-LJO-JLT (PC)

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION, WITH 

PREJUDICE, AS FRIVOLOUS

(Doc. 1)

ORDER THAT THIS DISMISSAL COUNT AS A 

STRIKE PURUSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)

Plaintiff, Adrian Moon, is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983 which he filed on March 18, 2015. The first sentence of Plaintiff's 

Complaint states, "[t]his is a refiling of closed case Adrian Moon v. Kim Holland, et al., 1:14-cv01704-LJO-JLT, U.S. E.D. Ct. as a new filing to which the Moon v. Holland, et al. case was 

deliberately closed by Defendants O'Neill/Thurston." (Doc. 1, p. 1.) 

The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 

governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. ' 1915A(a). The 

Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally 

frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek monetary 

relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2); 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii). A claim is “frivolous” when it is without “basis in law or fact,” and 

“malicious” when it is “filed with the intention or desire to harm another.” Andrews v. King, 398 

Case 1:15-cv-00446-LJO-JLT Document 5 Filed 04/01/15 Page 1 of 3
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

F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir.2005). 

Plaintiff titled his initial pleading as a Complaint under the Civil Rights Act 42 U.S.C. § 

1983. However, while Plaintiff makes a few general conclusory statements regarding being 

confined in California Correctional Institute's Maximum Isolation Facility, the obvious and 

overwhelming thrust of this filing is for Moon v. Holland ("the Prior Action") to be reopened and 

for the undersigned and Magistrate Judge Thurston to recuse ourselves. 

To that end, Plaintiff alleges that the judges he has named as Defendants in this action are 

members of "C.C.B. Inc." which he alleges is an organized crime syndication whose "members 

are placed in strategic state and federal positions as employees, causing mayhem, accept bribes, 

lie, cheat, steal, commit murder, kidnappings, racketeering, criminal acts and a myriad of acts of 

public corruption." (Doc. 1, p. 2.) Plaintiff then alleges that the undersigned and Magistrate 

Judge Thurston "failed to recuse themselves, then, went on to issue a 'green light' hit contract on 

Plaintiff Moon on January 14, 2015 . . . ." (Doc. 1, p. 9.) In support of this, Plaintiff refers to a 

motion attached to the Complaint from his Prior Action, which seeks to reinstate/reopen that case 

and recuse the undersigned and Magistrate Judge Thurston from it. (Doc. 9, pp. 12-21.) 

Judgment was entered in Plaintiff's Prior Action on February 25, 2015. Plaintiff persisted 

in filing multiple motions after judgment was entered such that a minute order issued on March 2, 

2015 which disregarded Plaintiff's post judgment motions and ordered that no further filings 

would be accepted in the case. See Moon v. Holland, et al., 14-cv-1704-LJO-JLT (PC), Doc. 30. 

Plaintiff signed the motion attachment from his Prior Action on March 5, 2015. (Doc. 1, at p. 

19.) Thus, the motion that Plaintiff attached to the Complaint in this action was not entered and is 

not reflected on the docket of the Prior Action. However, his reference to and attachment of this 

motion, coupled with his allegations noted above, make it clear that Plaintiff filed the Complaint 

in this action as a result of and in reaction to the closure of his Prior Action and the return of his 

post-judgment motions therein.

As was repeatedly stated1in Plaintiff's Prior Action, where he also made outrageous 

 

1

Judicial notice is taken of Docs. 13, 20, and 25 in Moon v. Holland, et al., 1:14-cv-1704-LJO-JLT (PC). Fed.Rules 

Evid.Rule 201, 28 U.S.C.A.; Harris v. County of Orange, 682 F.3d 1126, 1131-32 (2012) (judicial notice may be 

taken of undisputed matters of public record, including documents on file in federal or state courts). 

Case 1:15-cv-00446-LJO-JLT Document 5 Filed 04/01/15 Page 2 of 3
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

allegations against various judiciary, such allegations against judicial officers need not be 

considered as they are fanciful and simply not facially plausible under Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 

662, 678 (2009) and they neither circumvent the absolute immunity to which judges are entitled 

for judicial actions taken within the exercise of their judicial functions, see Miller v. Davis, 521 

F.3d 1142, 1145 (9th Cir. 2008) quoting Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 335, 347, 20 L.Ed. 

646 (1871); Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072, 1078 (9th Cir. 1986), nor require their recusal, see 

Miles v. Ryan, 697 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir. 2012) quoting United States v. Holland, 519 F.3d 909, 913 

(9th Cir.2008); Duckworth v. Department of Navy, 974 F.2d 1140, 1142 (9th Cir. 1992) quoting 

Mayes v. Leipziger, 729 F.2d 605, 607 (9th Cir. 1984).

Plaintiff filed the Complaint in this current action explicitly to resurrect his Prior Action

and to get the undersigned and Magistrate Judge Thurston recused. A complaint is not the proper 

vehicle for Plaintiff to challenge adverse judgment in his Prior Action. Plaintiff's recourse for the 

result in his Prior Action is not with this Court. 

In this instance, this action is frivolous as it presents no basis upon which relief may be 

granted under federal law. Accordingly, this action is HEREBY ORDERED DISMISSED, with 

prejudice, as frivolous. This dismissal SHALL count as a strike pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 31, 2015 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

Case 1:15-cv-00446-LJO-JLT Document 5 Filed 04/01/15 Page 3 of 3