Epperson v. Chemical Weapons Convention et al, No. 1:2022cv00734 - Document 7 (E.D. Cal. 2022)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending that Plaintiff's Complaint be Dismissed without Leave to Amend; ORDER DIRECTING Clerk of Court to Assign a District Judge signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 7/28/2022. Referred to Judge Dale A. Drozd. Objections to F&R due within Twenty-One Days.(Sant Agata, S)
Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 CHRIS JONATHAN EPPERSON, 11 Plaintiff, 12 13 v. Case No. 1:22-cv-00734-EPG FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, RECOMMENDING THAT PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT BE DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION, 14 Defendant. OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN TWENTY-ONE DAYS 15 (ECF No. 1) 16 ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO ASSIGN A DISTRICT JUDGE 17 Plaintiff Chris Jonathan Epperson (“Plaintiff”) proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis in 18 19 this action. (ECF No. 1). The complaint, filed on June 16, 2022, lists defendants as Chemical 20 Weapons Convention, Oracle, SAP, Hewert [sic] Packard, Global America, and Vladir [sic] 21 Putin. Plaintiff claims to be suing under a Codification Order, Article III Constitution, and 22 Executive Order 10958. The Court concludes that the complaint fails to state any cognizable claims and 23 24 25 recommends dismissing it without leave to amend. I. SCREENING REQUIREMENT As Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court screens the complaint under 28 26 27 U.S.C. § 1915. (ECF No. 5). “Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that the action 28 1 1 or appeal fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 2 A complaint is required to contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that 3 the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not 4 required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 5 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell 6 7 8 9 10 11 Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). A plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). The mere possibility of misconduct falls short of meeting this plausibility standard. Id. at 679. While a plaintiff’s allegations are taken as true, courts “are not required to indulge unwarranted inferences.” Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Additionally, a plaintiff’s legal conclusions are not accepted as true. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. 12 13 14 15 Pleadings of pro se plaintiffs “must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding that pro se complaints should continue to be liberally construed after Iqbal). II. SUMMARY OF PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT 16 Plaintiff lists the following defendants: Chemical Weapons Convention, Oracle, SAP, 17 Hewert [sic] Packard, Global America, and Vladir [sic] Putin. Plaintiff states that the basis of 18 jurisdiction is “Codification Order,” Article III of the Constitution, and Executive Order 10958. 19 In the statement of claim, Plaintiff states “Operation Opposition Perogative initiative secret 20 hidden encounters 2 udergoes 3 remains biological chemical weapons used during World War II.” 21 (errors in original). Plaintiff asks for summary judgment. 22 III. ANALYSIS OF PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT 23 A complaint will be considered frivolous, and therefore subject to dismissal under § 24 1915(e)(2)(B), “where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Nietzke v. Williams, 490 25 26 27 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); see also Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32–33 (1992) (“At the same time that it sought to lower judicial access barriers to the indigent, however, Congress recognized that ‘a litigant whose filing fees and court costs are assumed by the public, unlike a paying litigant, lacks an economic incentive to refrain from filing frivolous, malicious, or repetitive 28 2 1 lawsuits.’”). A federal court cannot properly sua sponte dismiss an action commenced in forma 2 pauperis if the facts alleged in the complaint are merely “unlikely.” Denton, 504 U.S. at 33. 3 However, a complaint may be properly dismissed sua sponte if the allegations are found to be 4 “fanciful,” “fantastic,” or “delusional,” or if they “rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly 5 incredible.” Id. at 32–33. If a case is classified as frivolous, “there is, by definition, no merit to 6 7 the underlying action and so no reason to grant leave to amend.” Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 n. 8 (9th Cir. 2000). Plaintiff’s complaint is frivolous under this legal standard. Plaintiff does not describe any 8 9 10 11 facts. Plaintiff has listed numerous companies along with Vladimir Putin as defendants. Plaintiff’s statement of claim--“Operation Opposition Perogative initiative secret hidden encounters 2 udergoes 3 remains biological chemical weapons used during World War II”-- is incoherent and fanciful. 12 13 14 For this reason, Plaintiff’s complaint should be dismissed. See Sameer v. Khera, No. 1:17-cv-01748-DAD-EPG, 2018 WL 6338729, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2018), appeal dismissed as frivolous, No. 19-15011, 2019 WL 7425404 (9th Cir. Aug. 27, 2019) (dismissing the case with 15 prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction as “the only appropriate response” to “fanciful 16 allegations” in complaint that “alleges the existence of a vast conspiracy bent on plaintiff's 17 destruction”); Ayres v. Obama, 2013 WL 5754953, at *2 (D. Hawai'i Oct. 22, 2013) (allegations 18 that FBI implanted biochips in plaintiff and her family to turn them into “a living vegetable or a 19 New World Order slave” were “so ‘fantastic’ and ‘fanciful’ as to be clearly baseless”); 20 Bivolarevic v. U.S. CIA, 2010 WL 890147, at *1–2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 8, 2010) (court lacked 21 jurisdiction over claims that CIA subjected plaintiff to “voice to skull technology” as a “mind 22 control weapon”). IV. 23 For the foregoing reasons, the Court recommends dismissing Plaintiff’s case. The Court 24 25 26 27 28 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS also does not recommend giving leave to amend. Although this is Plaintiff’s first complaint, it is clear from the face of the complaint that it is frivolous.1 1 If Plaintiff believes that he can cure this deficiency in an amended complaint, he may file objections to these Findings and Recommendations explaining how he would amend his complaint to state a cognizable claim. 3 1 Accordingly, based on the foregoing, IT IS RECOMMENDED that: 2 1. Plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed. 3 2. The Clerk of the Court be instructed to close the case. 4 These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States district judge 5 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within twenty-one 6 (21) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file written 7 objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 8 9 10 11 12 13 Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). Additionally, IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to assign a district judge to this case. IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 15 Dated: July 28, 2022 /s/ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4