Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00750/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00750-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1331lm Fed. Question: Legal Malpractice

---

1

18cv750-CAB-NLS

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 TABBUTT,

Plaintiff,

vs.

SALLY BRONER AND A.J. TABBUTT, 

AND ALL ASSOCIATES, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 18cv750-CAB-NLS

1) DISMISSING CIVIL ACTION 

AS FRIVOLOUS AND FOR FAILING 

TO STATE A CLAIM PURSUANT 

TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), (ii)

AND

2) DENYING MOTIONS TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 

AND TO APPOINT COUNSEL 

AS MOOT [Doc. Nos. 2, 3]

Brice Tabbutt (“Plaintiff”) filed this civil action alleging in the civil cover sheet that 

there is jurisdiction because of “U.S. Government Plaintiff” and that the cause of action is 

“Medical and Legal Malpractice (unconstitutional).” [Doc. No. 1-1.]

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) [Doc. No. 2], together with a Motion to Appoint Counsel [Doc. No.

3].

Case 3:18-cv-00750-CAB-NLS Document 4 Filed 04/20/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

18cv750-CAB-NLS

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

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 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.”).

Case 3:18-cv-00750-CAB-NLS Document 4 Filed 04/20/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

18cv750-CAB-NLS

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

B. Plaintiff’s Complaint

Here, Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to comply with Rule 8 because it is comprised of 

eight pages of hand-written, incoherent, and rambling narrative (almost devoid of any 

punctuation) with no discernable cause of action or requested relief. There is mention of 

everyone from President Trump to Governor Brown to Wall Street CEO’s, as well as 

somebody named Sally Broner. But it is unclear what the relationship is between these 

people or how they may be legally liable to Plaintiff. Rather, the complaint reads more 

like a manifesto, with phrases such as “Let’s make America Greater Than Ever” and “[i]f 

I Brice R. Tabbutt can Honorably use my talents exempted. My prayers are to be heard 

A.S.A.P. to live free, liberty, and use justice to bring law’s legal highest courts in the 

world.” [Doc. No. 1 at 7.] The complaint is simply incomprehensible. In addition, Plaintiff 

is obviously not the “U.S. Government” and, therefore, there is no discernable basis for 

federal jurisdiction. 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, in light of the presentation of the complaint as more of a 

diatribe than a request for relief, amendment of the complaint would be futile. KlamathLake Pharm. Ass’n v. Klamath Med. Serv. Bureau, 711 F.2d 1276, 1293 (9th Cir. 

1983)(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 and Order

Good cause appearing, the Court:

1) DISMISSES this civil action, Tabbutt v. Broner, et al., S.D. Cal. Civil Case 

No. 3:18cv750-CAB-NLS as frivolous and for failing to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii);

2) DENIES Plaintiff’s Motions to Proceed IFP and to Appoint Counsel as moot 

Case 3:18-cv-00750-CAB-NLS Document 4 Filed 04/20/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

18cv750-CAB-NLS

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

[Doc. Nos. 2, 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

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

matter and to close the file.

Dated: April 20, 2018

Case 3:18-cv-00750-CAB-NLS Document 4 Filed 04/20/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4