UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE DI STRI CT OF COLUMBIA

__________________________________________ ) RODNEY B EL L E, SR., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 10-0616 ) TEMECUL A/RI VERSI DE/SAN DI EGO ) SUPERI OR COURT/NEVADA TO WNSHI P ) COMMI SSI ONERS & PRESI DI NG ) J UDGES, et al. , ) ) Def endants. ) __________________________________________)

MEMORANDUM OPI

NI ON Plaintiff Rodney

Be lle, Sr., proce eding pro seand purpor ting to proc eed a s a “private attorne y

g ener al,” f

iled the complaint in this case on April 19, 2010. He names a s defe ndants fifty -five individuals and e ntities, as well as one thousand “ J ohn and Jane Does” and, as a group, the “ Temec ula/Riverside/San Dieg o Superior Court/Neva da Township Court & Commi ssioners & Presiding Judge s.” Complaint (“Compl.”) at 1-6. A mong the named defe ndants are varie ty

of alleg ed employees of

the Superior Court of Califor nia, numerous employ ees of

the Riverside County

“Sheriff Depa rtment,” the City

of San Dieg o, and assor

ted banks and othe r financ ial instit utions. I d.

The substanc e of Mr . Be lle’s complaint is, fra nkly , incomprehe nsible, consisting of longstrings of

leg al terms strungtoge ther without appa rent log ic and without conne ction to specific fac tual alleg ations directe d at spec ific def endants. The followingpassag e is char acte ristic:Plaintiff Rodney Be lle Sr., Per- Private A ttorney Gene ral B ill & Statute here by

bringthis P etition for the Conveningof a F eder al Gra nd J ury of my First Amendme nt Criminal C omplaint Reveal and fully Document Tr oubling state Temec ula Coast Guar d Court of Mar itime/Mi litary

Review, Judicial Misconduct Compl aint and Attachments by

Certified mail to the United States Attorne y Gene ral a nd President Obama , Inquire unde r the fr eedom of I nformation Ac t, Request of Crede ntial of Presidential Commi ssion and [Tit le of Nobility ] Appoint ment to Temec ula and Riverside/San Dieg o state Court J udg es/Neva da Township Court to Act as a Public official Ar

ticle I I I District Court J udg e and A rticle I I IDistrict Court Prosecutor Per- California States Constituti on None Ratification in 1879 and Repeale d and the State Constitution Eliminations of J ustice Court to this date, J ustice Municipal/Superior Court and its Administrative J udicial offic er of the Peac e, is itself Corrupt and Atr ocity ag ainst the Gene ral Public at L arg e has a

nd will continue to be in J eopar dy as long as None Appointed Article I I ICourt J udg e & Article I I ICourt Procee ding Guar antee d Rules of the Common L aw by the 7 Amendment of t h the Constitut ions for united States of Ame rica

. Compl. at 11. Mr. Belle’ s complaint is also acc ompanied by numerous exhibits , including a copy of a ve ry simil ar c omplaint filed in the United States District Court for the Centra l District of California. See id., Ex . A. That c omplaint was dismissed as frivolous on November 24, 2009. See B elle v. De utsche B ank Trust Co., Civil Action No. 09-2563, 2009 WL 4253101 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 24, 2009).

Since the filing of his complaint in this C ourt, Mr. B elle has ne ver f iled an aff idavit of servic e, as is re quired by Rule 4 of the F eder al Rules of Civil P roce dure. H e has, howeve r, filed a

string a documents, ea ch entitled a “ notice of joinder ” and pur porting to consolidate this action with what a ppear to be judicial proc eeding s in state court. See , e.g ., Notice of J oinder, Doc ket No. 2, at 6. Only one set of de fenda

nts, consisting of Cathe rine Cortez Masto, Patrick F erguson, Ted Pribnow, B rett Allen, John Munoz , Diane Comea ux , Fe rnando Serra no, and Mike Willdon (“the moving de fenda nts”), has r esponded to the pla intiff’s

2complaint; they have move d to dismi ss the claims ag ainst them. See State of Ne vada Def endants’ Motion to Dismiss P laintiff’s Complaint at 1. The Court advised Mr . Be lle by Orde r date d J une 4, 2010, that the motion would be g rante d as conc eded if he fa iled to oppose it

as re quired by

L ocal Civil Rule 7(b). Since Mr. B elle neve rtheless fa iled to respond, the motion will be g rante d as conc eded, a nd all claims ag ainst the moving de fenda nts will be dismi ssed. The Court is also empowe red to dismiss claims sua sponte pursuant to Rule 12(b)( 6) of the F eder al Rules of Civil P roce dure where a plaintiff’ s claims are such that “the plaintiff ca

nnot possibly

win relief

.” B oritz v. Unit ed States, 685 F . Supp. 2d 113, 126 (D.D.C. 2010) (quotingBe st v. Kelly , 39 F.3d 328, 331 ( D.C. Cir. 1994)) (inter nal quotation marks omitted). Such is the case here . Even whe n construingthe complaint as libera lly as possible, the Court is unable to ext rac t from the complaint any coher ent claims ag ainst any of the de fenda

nts. Consequently , the complaint will be dismissed. An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion shall issue this s ame da y . SO ORDERED. /s/_______________________________ PAULL . FRI EDMAN United States District J udg e DATE: Mar ch 31, 2011

3