The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
AZAEL DYTHIAN PERALES, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. )
C.A. No. 17-11509-PBS
)
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN )
FRANCISCO SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, )
et al., )
)
Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
December 26, 2017
Saris, C.J.
For the reasons stated below, the Court dismisses this
action.
I. Background
Pro se litigant Azael Dythian Perales, who provides a
California mailing address and states that he is homeless, has
filed a 177-page document that was docketed as a single
complaint. He names over 250 defendants, most of whom he
identifies as being employees or departments of the State of
California, San Francisco County, Los Angeles County, and Orange
County. Perales claims that the defendants are guilty of
espionage, computer and bank fraud crimes, RICO crimes, and
other misconduct.
Perales seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
II. Discussion
Where a litigant moves to proceed without prepayment of the
filing fee, the Court conducts a preliminary review of the
complaint and may dismiss if it is malicious, frivolous, fails
to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks
monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such
relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). “The term ‘frivolous’ is
used to denote not only a claim wholly lacking in merit but also
a suit that, for whatever reason, clearly can’t be maintained.”
Okoro v. Bohman, 164 F.3d 1059, 1063 (7th Cir. 1999).
Here, Perales’s complaint cannot be maintained and is
therefore frivolous because it does not meet the pleading
requirements of Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, the Court is without personal jurisdiction over the
defendants, and venue is improper.
Rule 8(a) requires a complaint to set forth a “short and
plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is
entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). At a minimum,
the complaint must “give the defendant fair notice of what the
plaintiff’s claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.”
Calvi v. Knox County, 470 F.3d 422, 430 (1st Cir. 2006) (quoting
Educadores Puertorriqueños en Acción v. Hernández, 367 F.3d 61,
66 (1st Cir. 2004)). Rule 8(a) requires a party to make his
pleading
straightforward, so that judges and adverse parties
need not try to fish a gold coin from a bucket of mud.
Federal judges have better things to do, and the
substantial subsidy of litigation (court costs do not
begin to cover the expense of the judiciary) should be
targeted on those litigants who take the preliminary
steps to assemble a comprehensible claim.
United States ex rel. Garst v. Lockheed-Martin Corp. 328 F.3d
374, 378 (7th Cir. 2003). Thus, at a minimum, the complaint
must “give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff’s
claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Calvi v. Knox
County, 470 F.3d 422, 430 (1st Cir. 2006) (quoting Educadores
Puertorriqueños en Acción v. Hernández, 367 F.3d 61, 66 (1st
Cir. 2004)). Here, Perales’s complaint is lengthy and
incomprehensible rather than short and plain.
Further, the Court is without personal jurisdiction over
the defendants. “[T]o hear a case, a court must have personal
jurisdiction over the parties, ‘that is, the power to require
the parties to obey its decrees.’” Hannon v. Beard, 524 F.3d
275, 279 (1st Cir. 2008) (quoting Daynard v. Ness, Motley,
Lodaholt, Richardson, & Poole, P.A., 290 F.3d 42, 50 (1st Cir.
2002)). The due process clause of the United States
Constitution “protects an individual’s liberty interest in not
being subject to the binding judgments of a forum with which he
has established no meaningful contacts, ties, or relations.”
Cossaboon v. Maine Medical Ctr., 600 F.3d 25, 32 (1st Cir. 2010)
(quoting Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 642-472-72
(1985)) (internal quotation marks omitted). Therefore, “a court
is precluded from asserting jurisdiction unless ‘the defendant’s
conduct and connection with the forum State are such that [it]
should reasonably anticipate being haled into court there.’” Id.
(quoting World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286,
297 (1980)) (alteration in original). Perales has not pled any
facts from which the Court can reasonably infer that the
defendants, who are indentified as California residents, have
meaningful contacts with Massachusetts that would permit the
Court to exercise personal jurisdiction over them.
Finally, the action cannot be maintained in this Court
because venue is not proper in the District of Massachusetts.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1391.
III. Conclusion
Accordingly:
1. The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is
ALLOWED.
2. This action is DISMISSED as frivolous.
3. The motion to admit new related cases is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ Patti B. Saris_____
PATTI B. SARIS
CHIEF, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE