Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-00643/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-00643-0/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ERIC M. PENATE,

Plaintiff(s),

 vs.

WILSHIRE CREDIT CORPORATION, et al.,

Defendant(s). /

Case No. 08-0643MHP 

ORDER DISMISSING

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff attempts to invoke the admiralty jurisdiction of this court with his complaint which

he titles “Petition for Libel Review of an Administrative Judgment” and denominating himself as

Sramineus Homo, US Vessel, Libellant”. His complaint is strewn with misused, nonexistent or

curious words purportedly in English, Latin and bloated legalese.1 The complaint seems to be a

repeat of other complaints recently filed in this court, all filed under the mistaken impression that the

plaintiff need merely designate himself and the other parties as “vessels” in order to invoke the

admiralty jurisdiction of the court and to achieve some other mistaken objectives. 

What is clear from plaintiff’s complaint is that nothing is clear. It is not a short and plain

statement of his case. It is incomprehensible and nonsensical. The papers appear to be drawn from

some web site or other publicly available boilerplate drafted by someone who is ill-informed and is

misinforming others such as this plaintiff.2

Apparently plaintiff has a dispute with the defendant about some extension of credit, loan or

debt collection. It is impossible to determine this from his papers. Plaintiff would do well to submit

Case 3:08-cv-00643-MHP Document 9 Filed 02/05/08 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

a short and plain statement of his case as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) rather

than try to use concepts he does not understand or follow the suggestions of some “wannabe”

lawyer. Or, better yet, he should retain a real lawyer to represent him.

The district court may dismiss a complaint sua sponte if federal subject matter jurisdiction is

lacking or if the complaint is frivolous. See 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2). A complaint is frivolous if "it

lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325

(1989)(found to be superseded on other grounds by reason of adoption of section 1915(e) which

makes dismissal for failure to state a claim mandatory), see, e.g., Lopez v. G.A.Smith, 203 F.3d

1122, 1126 (9thCir.2000); Cruz v. Gomez, I/O, 202 F.3d 593, 596 (2dCir.2000). 

Where a complaint fails to state "any constitutional or statutory right that was violated, nor

asserts any basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction", there is no "arguable basis in law" under

Neitzke and the court on its own initiative may decline to permit the plaintiff to proceed and dismiss

the complaint under section 1915(d). Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995). 

Furthermore, where the complaint alleges facts that are "clearly baseless", "fanciful", or

"delusional" it may be dismissed as frivolous. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 112 S.Ct. 1728,

1733 (1992)(also found superseded in that dismissal was within discretion of district court under

section 1915(d)) and now, under section 1915(e)(2) dismissal is mandatory, see Cruz v. Gomez, 202

F.3d at 596. If the pro se plaintiff can cure the factual allegations in order to state a claim, the court

may give him or her leave to do so. However, if repleading cannot cure the deficiencies the court

may dismiss without leave to amend and even dismiss with prejudice. See Cato v. United States, 70

F.3d at 1106.

It is possible that plaintiff could state some plausible claim over which this court or the state

court would have jurisdiction. It may be that plaintiff has some legitimate contract or debt collection

claims, for example, but it is impossible to tell from plaintiff's current complaint. Certainly, there is

nothing that appears in the papers that falls within the court's admiralty jurisdiction. Plaintiff cannot

make himself and the defendant vessels just by calling them vessels. 

Case 3:08-cv-00643-MHP Document 9 Filed 02/05/08 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

 Therefore, the complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend to state a proper and

comprehensible claim within this court’s jurisdiction. If plaintiff intends to amend to comply with

this order, he must file his amended complaint within thirty (30) days of the date of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: February 1, 2008 MARILYN HALL PATEL

Judge, United States District Court

Northern District of California

Case 3:08-cv-00643-MHP Document 9 Filed 02/05/08 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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. For example, in the caption plaintiff refers to himself as “Sramineus Homo”. There is no such word

as “sramineus” in Latin; there is a word “stramineus” which means “straw” and would render plaintiff

a “straw man”. That term, of course, refers to an idea or argument that has no substance, but is set up

so that it can be easily knocked down. So, either plaintiff misunderstands the meaning of the term or

perhaps he has a sense of humor. 

2. Indeed, this court has located a website that seems to be spawning the type of complaint filed in this

action. The court has reviewed the website and instructs plaintiff that the contents of that site are a

fraud being perpetrated on the public. It is full of false information. The use of the heading “United

States District Court” is a misrepresentation. It is not issued or approved by any United State District

Court. The contents of the document on the website are full of false statements. People use it at their

peril and may, unfortunately, jeopardize real and legitimate claims or disputes they have. They can only

do themselves harm by following the ill-advised, wacky recommendations on this website. 

ENDNOTES

Case 3:08-cv-00643-MHP Document 9 Filed 02/05/08 Page 4 of 4