Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02799/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02799-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 430
Nature of Suit: Banks and Banking
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

– 1 – 18cv2231

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

BRICE R. TABBUTT,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 18-cv-2799-BAS-LL

ORDER:

(1)DISMISSING CIVIL 

ACTION AS FRIVILOUS 

AND FOR FAILURE TO 

STATE A CLAIM;

(2)DENYING AS MOOT 

MOTION TO PROCEED IN 

FORMA PAUPERIS [ECF 

No. 2]

v.

JP MORGAN CHASE,

Defendant.

Plaintiff Brice R. Tabbutt has filed a Complaint against “JP Morgan Chase 

(Two Branches)”. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff alleges on the civil cover sheet that this 

Court has federal question jurisdiction over the case and that he is filing under the 

U.S. Statute “Statute of Limitations (Laws–Equity).” (ECF No. 1-1.) Plaintiff lists 

the cause of action as “To serve U.S. Government (Handyman).” (Id.)

Plaintiff did not prepay the civil filing fees required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) 

at the time of filing; instead he has filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 

(“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), (ECF No. 2).

I. Screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) 

A. Standard of Review

A complaint filed by any person seeking to proceed IFP is subject to sua sponte 

dismissal if it is “frivolous, malicious, fail[s] to state a claim upon which relief may 

Case 3:18-cv-02799-BAS-LL Document 3 Filed 12/14/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
– 2 – 18cv2231

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

be granted, or seek[s] monetary relief from a defendant immune from such relief.” 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (per 

curiam) (holding that “the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) are not limited to 

prisoners.”); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) 

(“[S]ection 1915(e) not only permits, but requires a district court to dismiss an in 

forma pauperis complaint that fails to state a claim.”); see also Chavez v. Robinson, 

817 F.3d 1162, 1167-68 (9th Cir. 2016) (noting that § 1915(e)(2)(B) “mandates 

dismissal—even if dismissal comes before the defendants are served.”).

Complaints must also comply Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, which 

requires that each pleading include a “short and plain statement of the claim,” FED. 

R. CIV. P. 8(a)(2), and that “each allegation must be simple, concise, and direct.” 

FED. R. CIV. P. 8(d)(1). See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677-78 (2009). In 

addition to the grounds for sua sponte dismissal set out in § 1915(e)(2)(B), the district 

court may also dismiss a complaint for failure to comply with Rule 8 if it fails to 

provide the defendant fair notice of the wrongs allegedly committed. See McHenry 

v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1178–80 (9th Cir. 1996) (upholding Rule 8(a) dismissal of 

complaint that was “argumentative, prolix, replete with redundancy, and largely 

irrelevant”); Cafasso, United States ex rel. v. General Dynamics C4 Systems, Inc., 

637 F.3d 1047, 1059 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing cases upholding Rule 8 dismissals where 

pleadings were “verbose,” “confusing,” “distracting, ambiguous, and unintelligible,” 

“highly repetitious,” and comprised of “incomprehensible rambling,” while noting 

that “[o]ur district courts are busy enough without having to penetrate a tome 

approaching the magnitude of War and Peace to discern a plaintiff’s claims and 

allegations.”).

B. Analysis

Plaintiff’s Complaint is incredibly unclear. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff mentions 

he wants to negotiate with “Jaimie Diamond” so he may settle their many disputes, 

and it appears Plaintiff intends to refer to Jamie Dimon, the CEO of JP Morgan 

Case 3:18-cv-02799-BAS-LL Document 3 Filed 12/14/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
– 3 – 18cv2231

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

Chase. Plaintiff also confusingly lists various countries, refers to “fake wars or 

news” and states, “Together to Make America Great.” (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff then 

proposes a “joint partnership for life” with the U.S. Military. (Id. at 4.)

Plaintiff’s rambling four-page and incoherent Complaint fails to comply with 

Rule 8. It is not at all clear under which statute Plaintiff is suing, how the Complaint 

is connected to the listed Defendant JP Morgan Chase, or how Plaintiff was allegedly 

wronged. See McHenry, 84 F.3d at 1178 (upholding Rule 8 dismissal where “the 

very prolixity of the complaint made it difficult to determine just what circumstances 

were supposed to have given rise to the various causes of action.”) The Court also 

finds that, because the Complaint is an unintelligible list of random thoughts and not 

a request for relief, amendment of the Complaint would be futile. Klamath-Lake 

Pharm. Ass’n v. Klamath Med. Serv. Bureau, 711 F.2d 1276, 1293 (9th Cir. 1983)

(holding the court does not need to allow futile amendments). “When a case may be 

classified as frivolous or malicious, there is, by definition, no merit to the underlying 

action and so no reason to grant leave to amend.” Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 

1128, n. 8 (9th Cir. 2000).

II. Conclusion

Good cause appearing, the Court: 

1) DISMISSES this civil action, as frivolous and for failure to state a claim 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii); 

2) DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed I1FP as moot, (ECF No. 3);

3) CERTIFIES that an IFP appeal of this Order of dismissal would not be 

taken in good faith pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). See Coppedge v. United 

States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962); Gardner v. Pogue, 558 F.2d 548, 550 (9th Cir. 

1977) (indigent appellant is permitted to proceed IFP on appeal only if appeal would 

not be frivolous); and 

 

1 The Court notes that Judge Bencivengo previously dismissed another complaint by Plaintiff as 

frivolous and for failure to state a claim. See 18-cv-750 CAB-NLS (ECF No. 3).

Case 3:18-cv-02799-BAS-LL Document 3 Filed 12/14/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
– 4 – 18cv2231

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

4) DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to enter a final judgment of dismissal in this 

matter and to close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 14, 2018

Case 3:18-cv-02799-BAS-LL Document 3 Filed 12/14/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4