Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00562/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00562-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 371
Nature of Suit: Truth in Lending
Cause of Action: 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection Act

---

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

:MEHRAN: ABARZARY & SOHEILA:

FERDOWSKI; DAVID-WYNN: MILLER,

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. 12-CV-562 JLS (POR)

ORDER SUA SPONTE

DISMISSING COMPLAINT

vs. (ECF No. 1)

ONE WEST BANK, FSB,

Defendant.

On March 6, 2012, Plaintiffs “:Mehran: Abazary & Soheila: Ferdowski and David-Wynn:

Miller,” proceeding pro se, filed the Complaint in this action against Defendant One West Bank,

FSB. (Compl., ECF No. 1.) For the reasons stated below, the Court sua sponte dismisses

Plaintiffs’ Complaint for failure to comply with the requirements of Rule 8, and grants Plaintiffs

leave to amend.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) provides: “A pleading that states a claim for relief

must contain . . . a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to

relief.” Although Rule 8 “does not require ‘detailed factual allegations,’ . . . it [does] demand[]

more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556

U.S. 662, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555

- 1 - 12cv564

Case 3:12-cv-00562-JLS-POR Document 3 Filed 03/28/12 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

27

28

(2007)). In other words, “a plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to

relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a

cause of action will not do.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citing Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265,

286 (1986)). Generally, courts must broadly construe pleadings filed by pro se litigants, affording

pro se plaintiffs any benefit of the doubt. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007);

Thompson v. Davis, 295 F.3d 890, 895 (9th Cir. 2002). However, even when receiving liberal

construction, pro se litigants must still comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,

including Rule 8. See King v. Atiyeh, 790 F.2d 1362, 1364 (9th Cir. 1986). 

The Court finds the Complaint does not sufficiently show how Plaintiffs are entitled to

relief. As an illustration of the type of nonsensical and undecipherable text contained in the

Complaint, the caption reads as follows:

IN THE DOCUMENT-CONTRACT-POSTAL-VESSEL-COURT IN THE

CALIFORNIA-TERRITORY WITHIN THIS UNITED-STATES-DI-STRICTCOURT-BUILDING ARE WITH THE TRANSFER FROM THE STATECOURT TO THIS DOCUMENT-CONTRACT-POSTAL-VESSELFEDERAL-COURT. FOR THIS THREE-DAY-GRACE-TIME-RECISSIONCLAIM IS WITH THIS DAMAGE-CLAIM BY THE QUO-WARRANTOCOMPLAINT-DOCUMENT-CLAIM and: LIS-PENDENS-LIEN-CLAIM:

(Compl. 1) (emphasis in original). The Complaint goes on in this same manner for eleven

erattically-formatted pages. The civil cover sheet attached to the Complaint lists 42 U.S.C. §

19861 and 15 U.S.C. § 16922 as federal statutes under which Plaintiffs are filing, also stating

“QUO-WARRANTO COMPLAINT FRADULANT (sic) SYNTAX GRAMER (sic)” as the

“Nature of Suit.” (Civil Cover Sheet, ECF No. 1-1.) However, it is impossible to decipher any

such causes of action, or any other cognizable legal theories, from the text of Plaintiffs’ Complaint

itself. The attached Deed of Trust is similarly unhelpful in ascertaining Plaintiffs’ claims or bases

for this action. (Deed of Trust, ECF No. 1 at 12.) The Deed lists Mehran Abazary and Soheila

Fedowski, husband and wife as joint tenants, as “Borrower,” and IndyMac Bank, F.S.B., as

“Lender.” (Id.) Beyond these reference to several of the parties to this case, it is unclear how the

1

 42 U.S.C. § 1986 provides a cause of action for neglecting to prevent interference with civil

rights. 

2

 15 U.S.C. § 1692 contains Congressional findings and declaration of purpose with regard to

the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. 

- 2 - 12cv564

Case 3:12-cv-00562-JLS-POR Document 3 Filed 03/28/12 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

27

28

Deed of Trust relates to the Complaint. The Deed also contains substantial handwritten text, and

handwritten numbers appear above each typed word, apparently as part of some kind of code. 

Stamped at the bottom of each page is what appears to be the key to that code: “:Syntax-word-keymeaning: 1=Adverb, 2=Verb, 3= Adjective, 4=Pronoun; 8=Past-time, 9=Future-time,

9=Conjunction, NC=No-Contract.” Again, the meaning or relevance of this code is not explained. 

This is not the first such Complaint filed by Plaintiff Miller.3 In nearly identical

circumstances, judges in this district have dismissed Plaintiff’s incomprehensible and

unintelligible complaints for failure to assert “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that

the pleader is entitled to relief” under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). See, e.g., Miller v. Michael Burnett

& Matthews, LLP, No. 11cv2590 WQH (WVG), 2012 WL 909462 at *2 (S.D. Cal. Order Mar. 15,

2012) (“Dismissal is appropriate because the indecipherable allegations of the Complaint lack any

cognizable legal theory or sufficient facts to support a cognizable legal theory.”); Abraham-D.

Tomas v. AEGIS Mortgage Co., No. 10cv2286 BEN (BLM) (S.D. Cal. Orders Nov. 18, 2010 and

Jan. 28, 2011) (sua sponte dismissing case without prejudice). Here, the Court similarly finds

dismissal proper, where the Court cannot discern from the Complaint any facts or allegations

sufficient to support a cognizable legal theory upon which relief could be granted. Instead, the

Complaint is “filled with nonsensical, erratically-formatted lines of text that fail to allege any

facts, let alone a coherent legal claim.” Abraham-D. Tomas, No. 10cv2286 BEN (BLM) (S.D.

Cal. Order Jan. 27, 2011). 

Dismissal of this Complaint, especially without prejudice, is warranted under a variety of 

rules of civil procedure. See Amsterdam v. Office of Hawaiian Affairs, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS

91639 at *8-9 (D. Haw., Aug. 16, 2011) (citing Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227 n.6 (9th

Cir. 1984)) (explaining that a paid complaint that is “obviously frivolous” may be dismissed sua

sponte for numerous grounds, including Rule 12(b)(6), Rule 12(b)(1), and Rule 8 itself); Nasious

v. Two Unknown B.I.C.E. Agents, 492 F.3d 1158, 1162 (10th Cir. 2007) (stating that dismissing a

3

 Indeed, another unintelligible Complaint was recently filed by Plaintiff Miller, and,

simultaneously with this Order, the Court issues a similar Order sua sponte dismissing that Complaint

on the same grounds. See Mehran Abazary of the [Mehran: Afazary] v. Andersen, Hilbert & Parker, 

No. 12cv720 JLS (BLM) (S.D. Cal. filed March 26, 2012). 

- 3 - 12cv564

Case 3:12-cv-00562-JLS-POR Document 3 Filed 03/28/12 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

27

28

case under Rule 41(b) for failure to comply with Rule 8 allows the plaintiff “another go at

trimming the verbiage; accordingly, a district court may, without abusing its discretion, enter such

an order without attention to any particular proceedings.”); Apple v. Glenn, 183 F.3d 477, 479 (6th

Cir. 1999) (noting that district courts may sua sponte dismiss completely implausible paid

complaints under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim so long as the dismissal is without

prejudice or the plaintiff is given notice and an opportunity to respond, or under Rule 12(b)(1) for

lack of subject matter jurisdiction, with or without prejudice). 

Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED without prejudice. Through this Order of

dismissal, Plaintiffs have notice of the Complaint’s deficiencies and an opportunity to respond by

filing an Amended Complaint.4 If Plaintiffs wish, they may file an Amended Complaint that

adheres to the pleading requirements of Rule 8 within 30 days of the filing date of this Order. Any

such Amended Complaint must set forth a clear statement of Plaintiffs’ claims in order to give

Defendant a fair opportunity to respond and to allow the Court to perform its responsibilities in

managing this action. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 28, 2012

Honorable Janis L. Sammartino

United States District Judge

4

 Plaintiff Miller may also wish to remind himself of the instructions contained in Judge

Benitez’ Order in an above-mentioned case also filed by Miller, Abraham-D. Tomas, No. 10cv2286

BEN (BLM) (S.D. Cal. Order Jan. 27, 2011), which sets forth in detail Rule 8's pleading requirements

and thoroughly explains how the unintelligible amended pleadings in that case, which are quite similar

in substance and form to the instant Complaint, still failed to comply with these requirements.

- 4 - 12cv564

Case 3:12-cv-00562-JLS-POR Document 3 Filed 03/28/12 Page 4 of 4