Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Archuleta v. Alien State of Arizona

United States District Court, D. Arizona

November 12, 2019

Benjamin Archuleta, also named as Don Jose Benjamin atlantess Egypt IISIIS Allodial Rio Chama, Ex Republic Pyramid Soverignty Trust, Plaintiff,
v.
The Alien State of Arizona, Defendant.

          AMENDED REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          Camille D. Bibles, United States Magistrate Judge

         TO THE HONORABLE STEPHEN M. McNAMEE:

         Plaintiff, a self-represented litigant, applies to proceed in this Court without prepaying fees and costs. (ECF No. 2). The Court has serious concerns about the truthfulness of Plaintiff's representations in his application. According to his application, Plaintiff has no income, no money, no employer, no bank accounts, no assets, and no expenses. It is important for litigants applying to proceed without prepaying fees and costs to accurately and honestly report their income, assets, and expenses, and not to simply leave much of the form blank. As a reminder, the application requires that the applicant “[c]omplete all questions” and “[d]o not leave any blanks[.]” Despite these reservations, it is recommended that the Court grant the motion at ECF No. 2.

         The Court is required to dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint if the allegations contained in the complaint are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or if the plaintiff “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000). This requirement applies to all actions filed in forma pauperis, whether or not the plaintiff is incarcerated. Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1129; Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (per curiam). “The in forma pauperis statute, unlike Rule 12(b)(6), accords judges not only the authority to dismiss a claim based on an indisputably meritless legal theory, but also the unusual power to pierce the veil of the complaint's factual allegations and dismiss those claims whose factual contentions are clearly baseless.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31-32 (1992) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

         Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, a complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction, ” “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, ” and “a demand for the relief sought.” A complaint must also plead sufficient facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). Because one of the primary functions of a complaint is to provide defendants with notice of the legal claims asserted against them and the factual basis for those claims, a complaint written without clarity and specificity as to who is being sued and for what, “fails to perform the essential functions of a complaint.” McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1178-80 (9th Cir. 1996).

         Plaintiff's complaint must be dismissed because it does not comply with any of these standards. With regard to how Plaintiff asserts each defendant acted under color of state or local law, Plaintiff states: “Atlantess 1491 District Ex Marquess 1999 Estatuette; Kingdom Independant Ex. US. Art. Const I;8;1-4, VI;1-2 IV;4 exclusion Allodial.” (ECF No. 1 at 4). As to where the events giving rise to Plaintiff's claims occurred, Plaintiff states: “George Washington - Tiolet Paper 1999 Marquess statute.” (Id.). With regard to the date and approximate time the events giving rise to his claim(s) occurred, Plaintiff states: 1969-2019: 1491 Crony. 1492-1712-1776-1871-2019 Trolls.” (Id.). With regard to the relief sought, Plaintiff states: “Remand of Order Issuance (Grand Jury Muslim Elect Ministration - Only) mandating The Alien State in Arizona to vacate private politically correct body (Expell.) . . .” (ECF No. 1 at 5). Plaintiff also seeks an order remanding to the State “Judicial Case No. 43386-99 and 4275740, ” and a “preliminary injuction entered baring the the Government from right to proceed (sic), ” and “the sum of (5) million dollars via the Arizona State Treasury.” (ECF No. 1 at 10-11). Accordingly, specifically, Plaintiff's Complaint fails to explain why the Court has jurisdiction over the dispute or state an adequate factual basis for the claim(s). For this reason, IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) be granted.

         Upon screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff's be allowed thirty (30) days from the date the Court's order is issued to file an amended complaint.

         IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that, if Plaintiff does not file an amended complaint within the timeframe specified by the Court, the Court order this matter be dismissed without prejudice.

         This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure should not be filed until entry of the District Court's judgment. The parties shall have fourteen days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation within which to file specific written objections with the Court. See 28 U.S.C. ยง 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 6, 72. Thereafter, the parties have fourteen days within which to file a response to the objections. Failure to file timely objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.