(PS) In Re: Lee Clarke, No. 2:2018cv02044 - Document 2 (E.D. Cal. 2018)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 07/30/18 RECOMMENDING that this action be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Referred to Judge John A. Mendez; Objections to F&Rs due within 14 days. (Benson, A.)
Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 IN RE: LEE CLARKE, No. 2:18-cv-2044-JAM-KJN PS 12 13 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 15 16 17 18 On July 26, 2018, Lee Clarke, proceeding without counsel, filed a “non-concealment 19 crimes report contrary 18 U.S.C. § 2382 relevancies [sic].” (ECF No. 1.) No filing fee or motion 20 to proceed in forma pauperis was filed. However, because the court concludes that dismissal for 21 lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to the substantiality doctrine is appropriate, it finds it 22 unnecessary to require Mr. Clarke to pay the filing fee or submit a proper motion to proceed in 23 forma pauperis. 24 “Under the substantiality doctrine, the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction when 25 the question presented is too insubstantial to consider.” Cook v. Peter Kiewit Sons Co., 775 F.2d 26 1030, 1035 (9th Cir. 1985) (citing Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 536-39 (1974)). “The claim 27 must be ‘so insubstantial, implausible, foreclosed by prior decisions of this Court or otherwise 28 completely devoid of merit as not to involve a federal controversy within the jurisdiction of the 1 1 District Court, whatever may be the ultimate resolution of the federal issues on the merits.’” Id. 2 (quoting Oneida Indian Nation v. County of Oneida, 414 U.S. 661, 666 (1974)); see also Apple v. 3 Glenn, 183 F.3d 477, 479 (6th Cir. 1999) (“a district court may, at any time, sua sponte dismiss a 4 complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of 5 Civil Procedure when the allegations of a complaint are totally implausible, attenuated, 6 unsubstantial, frivolous, devoid of merit, or no longer open to discussion.”). 7 Here, even liberally construed, Mr. Clarke’s “report” amounts to little more than 8 gibberish, referencing treason, law and war, genocide, torture, four branches of government, and 9 the president of the United States and names of various legislators. It appears that Mr. Clarke is 10 essentially attempting to litigate his generalized grievances with respect to the system of 11 government in the United States. Mr. Clarke’s claims are implausible, attenuated, unsubstantial, 12 frivolous, and devoid of merit, and thus plainly fail to invoke this court’s subject matter 13 jurisdiction. 14 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 15 1. The action be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 16 2. The Clerk of Court be directed to close this case. 17 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 18 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen (14) 19 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 20 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 21 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections 22 shall be served on all parties and filed with the court within fourteen (14) days after service of the 23 objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may 24 waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th 25 Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir. 1991). 26 27 IT IS SO RECOMMENDED. Dated: July 30, 2018 28 2