Mkfarson

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 MICHAEL BRUCE ANTHONY Case No. 1:25-cv-1888 KES SAB

MCPHERSON,

12 aka Makal B. Mkfarson, ORDER DISMISSING ACTION AS

FRIVOLOUS, DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

13 Plaintiff, APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS, TERMINATING FINDINGS AND

14 v. RECOMMENDATIONS AS MOOT, AND

DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE

15 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF CASE

JUSTICE,

16 Docs. 2, 11, 12

Defendant.

17

18 Michael Bruce Anthony McPherson, also known as Mikal B. Mkfarson, seeks to proceed

19 in forma pauperis in this matter under 42 U.S.C § 1983. Plaintiff asserts the Department of Justice

20 is liable for “human rights violations,” including murder. Doc. 1 at 3. For the reasons set forth

21 below, the Court finds the complaint is frivolous and the action is DISMISSED with prejudice.

22 I. SCREENING

23 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by inmates seeking relief against a

24 governmental entity or an officer of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court

25 must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally

26 “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek

27 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2).

28 Moreover, “[n]otwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the

1 court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that … the action or appeal … fails

2 to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

3 II. PLEADING STANDARDS

4 A complaint must include a statement affirming the court’s jurisdiction, “a short and plain

5 statement of the claim showing the pleader is entitled to relief; and . . . a demand for the relief

6 sought, which may include relief in the alternative or different types of relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

7 8(a); see also Jones v. Cmty Redevelopment Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). The

8 Federal Rules adopt a flexible pleading policy, and pro se pleadings are held to “less stringent

9 standards” than those drafted by attorneys. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 521-21 (1972).

10 The purpose of a complaint is to give the defendant fair notice of the claims against him,

11 and the grounds upon which the complaint stands. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506,

12 512 (2002). Conclusory and vague allegations do not support a cause of action. Ivey v. Board of

13 Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). The Supreme Court explained that Rule 8 “demands

14 more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation,” and a complaint is

15 insufficient if it offers “naked assertions devoid of further factual enhancement.” Ashcroft v.

16 Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). The Court noted:

17 [A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as

true, to “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”

18 [Citation]. A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff

pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the

19 reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the

misconduct alleged. [Citation]. The plausibility standard is not

20 akin to a “probability requirement,” but it asks for more than a

sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.

21 [Citation]. Where a complaint pleads facts that are “merely

consistent with” a defendant’s liability, it “stops short of the line

22 between possibility and plausibility of ‘entitlement to relief.’

23 Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citations omitted).

24 III. ALLEGATIONS

25 Plaintiff names the Department of Justice as the sole defendant. Doc. 1 at 1. The only

26 claim raised in the complaint is for “Human Rights Violations,” and indicates the Department is

27 liable for “murders.” Id. at 3. Plaintiff asserts that he has evidence that the government has been

28 committing “unlawful murders against [the] whole Afrakan race” from 1777 to the present time.

1 Id. He alleges that he also has information that will prove he is “God, Universe, King, and the

2 World literally is all [his].” Id. at 6. contends, “All federal officials need to be executed by death

3 or by force [or] put in a federal prison forever.” Id. at 3; see also id. at 6.

4 IV. DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

5 A claim is frivolous “when the facts alleged arise to the level of the irrational or the

6 wholly incredible, whether or not there are judicially noticeable facts available to contradict

7 them.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992); see also Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S.

8 319, 325, 328 (1989) (finding claims may be dismissed as “frivolous” where the allegations are

9 “fanciful” or “describe[e] fantastic or delusional scenarios”). The Court may . . . dismiss a claim

10 as frivolous where it is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual

11 contentions are clearly baseless.” Howell v. Johnson, 2021 WL 3602139, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Aug.

12 13, 2021) (citing Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327). “The critical inquiry is whether a ... claim, however

13 inartfully pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis.” Id. (citations omitted). Plaintiff’s sole

14 claim lacks a proper legal basis. Moreover, Plaintiff is unable to represent claims based upon the

15 alleged harm to other individuals. For these reasons, the Court finds the complaint is frivolous.

16 To the extent Plaintiff’s allegations are based on a sovereign citizen ideology—in

17 referring to his body as “God, Universe [and] King”—courts have rejected arguments premised

18 on such ideology as frivolous and meritless. See, e.g., United States v. Studley, 783 F.2d 934, 937

19 n.3 (9th Cir. 1986) (rejecting arguments premised on the sovereign ideology as “utterly

20 meritless”); United States v. Sterling, 738 F.3d 228, 233, n.1 (11th Cir. 2013) (noting courts

21 “summarily reject[]” as frivolous the legal theory of individuals who consider themselves

22 sovereign and not subject to the jurisdiction of the courts); United States v. Benabe, 654 F.3d 753,

23 761 (7th Cir. 2011) (“[Sovereign citizen] theories should be rejected summarily, however they are

24 presented”); see also Mackey v. Bureau of Prisons, 2016 WL 3254037, at *1 (E.D. Cal. June 14,

25 2016).

26 V. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

27 As the complaint is frivolous, dismissal without leave to amend is appropriate. See Lopez

28 v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 n. 8 (9th Cir. 2000) (“When a case may be classified as frivolous or

1 | malicious, there is, by definition, no merit to the underlying action and so no reason to grant leave

2 || toamend.”). Where, as here, the complaint is frivolous, the “district court may deny leave to

3 | proceed in forma pauperis at the outset.” Minetti v. Port of Seattle, 152 F.3d 1113, 1115 (9th Cir.

4 | 1998); Tripati v. First Nat’l Bank & Trust, 821 F.2d 1368, 1369 (9th Cir. 1987) (same). For this

5 || reason, the Court also denies Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis.

6 The Court ORDERS:

7 1. Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice.

8 2. Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) is DENIED.

9 3. The findings and recommendations dated March 19, 2026 (Doc. 12) are terminated

10 as MOOT.

11 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this action.

12

13

14 | ITIS SO ORDERED. _

15 Dated: _ April 6, 2026 4

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT □□□□□

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28