Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-00835/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-00835-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RENE-FABRICIO: DIAZ,

JUAN-JOSE: VADO,

Sramineus Homo, US Vessel

Libellant,

 v.

CITI BANK, US Vessel 

DOES, ROES, and MOES 1-100, et al.,

US Vessel sand

Libellees, ___________________________________

RENE-FABRICIO: DIAZ

JUAN-JOSE: VADO

Lien Holders of the Vessel, the Real Party

In Interest, Lawful Man

Injured Third Party Intervenor/ Petitioner/

Libellant,

 v.

CITI BANK, U.S. Vessel, 

DOES, ROES, and MOES 1-100, et al.,

US VESSELS

INDIVIDUALLY AND SEVERALLY

Third Party Defendants/Libellees

 /

No. C-08-0835 MMC

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY

ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED

Before the Court is Rene-Fabricio Diaz and Juan-Jose Vado’s (collectively,

“petitioners”) “Petition for Libel of Review of an Administrative Judgment” (“Petition”), filed

Case 3:08-cv-00835-MMC Document 3 Filed 02/12/08 Page 1 of 2
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

February 6, 2008. 

Petitioners are individuals and have named a banking institution as a defendant. In

the Petition, petitioners allege “all parties are U.S. Vessels and fit the legal definition of a

U.S. Vessel,” (see Pet. ¶ 15), and “[t]he cargo is shipped via U.S. Postal Service and all

parties are subject to the Postal Codes in this instant action,” (see id. ¶ 18). Petitioners

also assert the “Law of the flag: Man is created in the image of God and to reduce a man to

chattel against the national debt is an affront to God. Exodus, 13:16 and Genesis 1:27.” 

(See id. ¶ 10.) 

“A trial court may act on its own initiative to note the inadequacy of a complaint and

dismiss it for failure to state a claim . . . .” Wong v. Bell, 642 F.2d 359, 361 (9th Cir. 1981)

(citation omitted). Before such dismissal may be entered, the court ordinarily “must give

notice of its sua sponte intention to invoke Rule 12(b)(6) and afford plaintiffs an opportunity

to at least submit a written memorandum in opposition . . . .” See id. at 362 (internal

quotation and citation omitted). Sua sponte dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) “may be made

without notice,” however, “where the claimant cannot possibly win relief.” See Omar v.

Sea-Land Service, Inc., 813 F.2d 986, 991 (9th Cir. 1987) (citing Wong, 642 F.2d at 362). 

Here, petitioners’ filing fails to allege any facts that could state a claim under either

state or federal law. Further, and contrary to the title of petitioners’ pleading, petitioners fail

to allege the existence of an administrative decision, let alone a decision that a court has

jurisdiction to review. Nevertheless, the Court will provide petitioners an opportunity to

respond to this order.

Accordingly, petitioners are hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, no later than

February 29, 2008, and in writing not to exceed five pages, why the instant action should

not be dismissed for failure to state a claim. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 12, 2008 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-00835-MMC Document 3 Filed 02/12/08 Page 2 of 2