Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00092/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00092-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: Civil Miscellaneous Case

---

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

WILLIAM-JOSEPH :MOORE ) 

 )

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. )

)

GARY FIEF, et al. )

 )

Defendants. )

)

) 

No. CV-F-05-0092 REC SMS

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

MOTIONS TO DISMISS.

(Docs. 21, 27)

Before the Court are Defendants’ motions to dismiss the

document filed by :William-Joseph :Moore, in esse, Sui Juris:

(“Plaintiff”) entitled “Demand to Prove Jurisdiction and Demand

for Writ to Quash Thirty Day Hold on Automobile” (“Complaint”). 

The Court finds this matter suitable for determination without

oral argument. Upon due consideration of the written arguments

of the parties and the record herein, the Court GRANTS

Defendants’ motions to dismiss.

I. Background

This case arises from a traffic stop on the night of

December 26, 2004. Plaintiff, who refers to himself as

“Demandant,” was allegedly stopped by “a representative of the

Case 1:05-cv-00092-REC -SMS Document 42 Filed 05/20/05 Page 1 of 11
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

 On January 25, 2005, Mr. Moore filed a “notice of 1

settlement” that indicated that the vehicle had been released from

the impound yard apparently operated by Mr. Johnson and that Mr.

Moore would not pursue any further claims against Mr. Johnson.

2

Defendants” for a traffic violation, apparently making an illegal

left turn. After being signaled by the officer, Plaintiff pulled

the vehicle over and complied with the officer’s request to roll

down the window. Without a request from the officer, Plaintiff

stepped out of the vehicle. The officer responded by allegedly

drawing his weapon and pointing it at Plaintiff. Plaintiff then

re-entered the vehicle and locked the doors to pray and think. 

The officer called for backup such that about “fifteen or twenty

or more representatives of the Defendants” were present. 

Plaintiff exited the vehicle and “representatives of the

Defendants began taking Demandant down the street while causing

Demandant bodily injury: At no time did Demandant offer any

physical resistance . . ..” Plaintiff and the vehicle were then

“taken away,” although the Complaint does not allege that an

arrest was made. Plaintiff was held overnight and released. A

notice to appear was issued on December 27, 2004. Plaintiff

alleges that he is “One American, a Sovereign American” and

“beyond the jurisdiction of the Defendants.” 

II. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed on January 4, 2005, and names as

Defendants Gary Fief, Richard Pierce, Jerry Dyer, Elizabeth Egan,

Alan Autry and Kenneth R. Johnson. 

1

The Complaint is not in proper form in accordance with the

Case 1:05-cv-00092-REC -SMS Document 42 Filed 05/20/05 Page 2 of 11
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

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of the

Eastern District of California. It sets forth the facts as

stated above, states that “Demandant refuses for cause and

without dishonor a third party ‘Notice to Appear . . . which is

the result of the actions and polices of [Defendants];’” and

“demands” that Defendants furnish Plaintiff with various

contracts that purportedly authorize Defendants to act. The

Complaint requests damages for the wrongful detainment of

Plaintiff overnight and payment of his medical expenses for

injuries incurred before and during the detainment. Plaintiff

also makes reference to the “unlawful taking” of the vehicle he

was driving and characterizes the detainment as a kidnaping.

Defendants Jerry Dyer and Alan Autry, respectively the chief

of police and mayor of the City of Fresno during the time in

question, filed a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for a

more definite statement. Defendants Dyer and Autry assert

various grounds for dismissal including lack of subject matter

jurisdiction, insufficiency of service of process (lack of

personal jurisdiction), failure to state a claim, failure to

comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil procedure, and

failure to allege compliance with the California Government Tort

Claims Act. 

Defendants Pierce and Egan move to dismiss based on the

demand not being a proper pleading, lack of subject matter

jurisdiction, and insufficiency of process. 

Plaintiff has filed various documents in this case, none in

Case 1:05-cv-00092-REC -SMS Document 42 Filed 05/20/05 Page 3 of 11
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

the technical form of an opposition. Included among these are

declarations in which Plaintiff purports to fire counsel for

various Defendants and to which he attaches the various filings

of Defendants with the following stamped on every page: “I do not

wish to contract with you: refusal for cause and without

dishonor, and without recourse to me . . ..” See e.g. Docs. 23,

26, 32-33. Plaintiff also makes various arguments relating to

the oaths of office taken by the respective Defendants. To the

extent Plaintiff’s filings made just prior to the then-scheduled

hearing on the matter, the Court granted Defendants time to

respond and stated that upon receipt of those filings the Court

would determine whether the matter is suitable for decision

without oral argument. As stated, the Court has determined this

to be the case. 

III. Discussion

A. Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

provides that a motion to dismiss may be based on a lack of

subject matter jurisdiction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). A

plaintiff must establish that subject matter jurisdiction exists,

and the Court begins the inquiry presuming that a case is outside

its limited jurisdiction. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of

America, 511 U.S. 375, 377, 114 S. Ct. 1673, 128 L. Ed. 2d 391

(1994). Jurisdiction in a federal district court may be based on

either federal question, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, or diversity, 28

U.S.C. § 1332.

Case 1:05-cv-00092-REC -SMS Document 42 Filed 05/20/05 Page 4 of 11
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

5

Pleadings “shall contain (1) a short and plain statement of

the grounds upon which the court’s jurisdictions depends.” Fed.

R. Civ. P. 8(a). Eastern District Local Rule 8-204 provides

that, when an allegation of jurisdiction is required, it “shall

appear as the first allegation of any complaint” and set forth

the basis for federal jurisdiction. E.D. Cal. R. 8-204. 

Here, the Complaint lacks a “short and plain statement”

setting forth subject matter jurisdiction. It does, however,

reference the Eleventh Circuit case Trezevant v. Tampa, 741 F.2d

336 (11th Cir. 1984). Trezevant was a case arising under the

Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which is an appropriate basis

for federal question jurisdiction. Although Plaintiff does not

specifically state that he is seeking relief pursuant to section

1983, when the facts alleged - being held at gunpoint, caused

“bodily injury,” and held overnight in jail - are combined with

the liberal construction given to the pleadings of pro se

litigants and the citation to Trezevant, it appears to the Court

that federal question subject matter jurisdiction exists. 

Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to dismiss on this basis is

DENIED. However, because the Complaint is being dismissed as set

forth below, Plaintiff must comply with the Federal and Local

rules regarding form and content, specifically as to the

jurisdictional allegation, in any amended pleading.

B. Insufficiency of Process & Service of Process

Rule 4(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides,

in pertinent part, that a “summons shall be served together with

Case 1:05-cv-00092-REC -SMS Document 42 Filed 05/20/05 Page 5 of 11
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

a copy of the complaint.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c). A plaintiff may

present a summons to the clerk of the court for issuance upon

filing a complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(b). Personal service of

process on a party within the forum state establishes personal

jurisdiction. Schwarzer, Rashima & Wagstaffe, Cal. Prac. Guide:

Fed. Civ. Pro. Before Trial §§ 3:40, 5:13.1 (The Rutter Group

2004). Local Rule 4-210(b) requires that, where service has not

been waived, “proof of service of process shall be made . . . by

affidavit of the person serving such process.” E.D. Cal. R. 4-

210(b). 

Rule 12(b)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

provides for dismissal based on insufficiency of process. Fed.

R. Civ. P. 12(b)(4). Similarly, Rule 12(b)(5) of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a complaint may be

dismissed for insufficiency of service of process. Fed. R. Civ.

P. 12(b)(5). A motion to quash is properly treated as a motion

to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(5). 

Here, process was insufficient. No summons has been issued

in this case according to both the docket sheet and Defendants’

papers. The language of Rule 4 is not optional. Unless a party

has specifically waived service of process, a plaintiff must

serve that party with a summons and a copy of the complaint. 

Without such service, the Court is without personal jurisdiction

over Defendants and a plaintiff’s suit has not properly been

initiated. Accordingly, the Complaint is DISMISSED without

prejudice. 

Case 1:05-cv-00092-REC -SMS Document 42 Filed 05/20/05 Page 6 of 11
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

7

Defendants Dyer and Autry also challenge the service of

process as insufficient because Plaintiff’s representative

delivered the complaint to their offices rather than to them

personally. This is incorrect. Rule 4(e) provides that

individuals may be served “pursuant to the law of the state in

which the district is located or in which service is effected.” 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(1). Section 415.20 of the California Code

of Civil Procedure provides that, in lieu of personal delivery of

a summons and complaint, “a summons may be served by leaving a

copy of the summons and complaint during usual office hours in

his or her office . . . with the person who is apparently in

charge thereof . . ..” Cal. Code Civ. P. § 415.20. The Court

notes, however, that the proofs of service filed by Plaintiff do

not comply with the local rules. The certificates filed by

Plaintiff indicate that they are made “within the limits of [the

declarant’s] religious beliefs” and on “information and belief”

rather than under penalty of perjury as required by Eastern

District Local Rule 5-135(c). Plaintiff is ordered to comply

with the local rules in subsequent filings. 

Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to quash service of process

is DENIED. 

C. Failure to State a Claim

Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

provides that a complaint may be dismissed for failure to state a

claim on which relief could be granted. Fed. R. Civ. P.

12(b)(6). A complaint may be dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6)

Case 1:05-cv-00092-REC -SMS Document 42 Filed 05/20/05 Page 7 of 11
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

8

if there is a lack of a cognizable legal theory or if there are

insufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory. 

Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dept., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir.

1990). The Court must determine whether or not it appears to a

certainty under existing law that no relief can be granted under

any set of facts that might be proved in support of a plaintiff’s

claims. De La Crux v. Tormey, 582 F.2d 45, 48 (9th Cir. 1978),

cert. denied, 441 U.S. 965, 99 S. Ct. 2416, 60 L. Ed. 2d 1072

(1979). In testing the sufficiency of a complaint against a Rule

12(b)(6) challenge, a court must “accept all material allegations

in the complaint as true and construe them in the light most

favorable to the plaintiff.” North Star Int’l v. Arizona Corp.

Comm’n, 720 F.2d 578, 580 (9th Cir. 1983). The Court need not,

however, “accept legal conclusions cast in the form of factual

allegations if those conclusions cannot reasonably be drawn from

the facts alleged.” Clegg v. Cult Awareness Network, 18 F.3d 752

(9th Cir. 1994). 

Although a complaint is to be viewed with liberality in pro

se and civil rights cases, “a liberal interpretation of a civil

rights complaint may not supply essential elements of the claim

that were not initially pled. Vague and conclusory allegations

of official participation in civil rights violations are not

sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss.” Ivey v. Bd. of

Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). 

Here, the Complaint is lacking in allegations specifically

related to any of Defendants with respect to both the section

Case 1:05-cv-00092-REC -SMS Document 42 Filed 05/20/05 Page 8 of 11
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

9

1983 claim and any state law claims. Section 1983 liability

requires a “causal relation between the conduct between the

conduct of the defendant and the plaintiff’s constitutional

deprivation.” Sheldon H. Nahmod, Civil Rights & Civil Liberties

Litigation (4 ed. West) 3:90-91; see also Monell v. Dept. of

Social Services of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 692, 98 S. Ct. 2018,

56 L. Ed. 2d 611 (1978). No such causation is alleged. 

As to any state law claims, not only is there no specific

state law cause of action set forth with supporting factual

allegations, but the Complaint also fails to allege compliance

with the California Tort Claims Act and fails to allege a

statutory basis for the liability of Defendants. 

Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED and

the Complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend. 

D. Failure to Comply with Rule 8

Defendants Dyer and Autry also argue that the Complaint

fails to comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure. Rule 8(e) specifies that the averments in a complaint

“shall be simple, concise, and direct.” Rule 8(e) “applies to

good claims as well as bad and is a basis for dismissal

independent of Rule 12(b)(6).” McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172,

1179 (9th Cir. 1996). Here, the Complaint is not “simple,

concise, and direct” and Plaintiff is ordered to comply with Rule

8 in any amended pleadings. Failure to do so may result in

dismissal of this action. 

///

Case 1:05-cv-00092-REC -SMS Document 42 Filed 05/20/05 Page 9 of 11
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

10

E. Rule 12(e) Motion for a More Definite Statement

Defendants Dyer and Autry moved in the alternative for a

more definite statement. While the Court agrees with Defendants’

assertion that there is insufficient information for Defendants

to frame a responsive pleading, because the Court is dismissing

the Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), Defendants’ motion for a

more definite statement under Rule 12(e) is DENIED. 

IV. Various “Motions” Filed by Plaintiff

Plaintiff has filed various documents bearing the title of

“motion,” i.e. “Motion Requiring Judicial Cognizance of All of

the Declarations the Demandant Enters Into This Case.” Many of

these are accompanied by prior filings of Defendants and by

various other exhibits relating to oaths of office and the

“original thirteenth amendment.”

These documents are not proper motions. Plaintiff does not

state any applicable legal authority for these motions as

required by Rule 7(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

Accordingly, all remaining “motions” by Plaintiff are DENIED.

V. Conclusion

The Complaint is dismissed in this case because the Court

lacks personal jurisdiction, which may be established by

complying with Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,

and because the Complaint fails to state a claim on which relief

can be granted. 

The Court grants leave to amend, however the Court also

emphasizes that while pro se litigants are given some leniency in

Case 1:05-cv-00092-REC -SMS Document 42 Filed 05/20/05 Page 10 of 11
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

11

pleading requirements, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and

Local Rules apply and must be complied with in all civil cases. 

Failure of subsequent pleadings submitted by Plaintiff to comply

with Rules 4, 7, 8, and 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure may result in dismissal of this case and the imposition

of sanctions. If Plaintiff is unable to understand and comply

with these rules, he is encouraged to obtain the assistance of

counsel in pursuing this matter. 

ACCORDINGLY, Defendants’ motions to dismiss are hereby

GRANTED and Plaintiff’s Complaint is hereby DISMISSED without

prejudice.

FURTHER, Defendants’ motions to quash and for a more

definite statement are hereby DENIED.

FURTHER, Plaintiff’s remaining motions are hereby DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 20, 2005 /s/ Robert E. Coyle 

ia40ij UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00092-REC -SMS Document 42 Filed 05/20/05 Page 11 of 11