United States District Court, D. Arizona
Benjamin Archuleta, also named as Don Jose Benjamin atlantess Egypt IISIIS Allodial Rio Chama, Ex Republic Pyramid Soverignty Trust, Plaintiff,
The Alien State of Arizona, Defendant.
AMENDED REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Camille D. Bibles, United States Magistrate Judge
THE HONORABLE STEPHEN M. McNAMEE:
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.
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).
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).
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.
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.
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
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. § 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