Opinion

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 MICHAEL BRUCE ANTHONY Case No. 1:26-cv-0708 KES EPG

MCPHERSON,

12 aka Makal B. Makfarsan, 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 ROYAL FAMILY OF ENGLAND, CASE

16 Defendant. Docs. 2, 8

17

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

19 in forma pauperis in this matter. Plaintiff names the “Royal Family of England” as the sole

20 defendant and appears to seek a court declaration that Plaintiff’s family is, in fact, the royal

21 family. Doc. 1 at 1, 3. For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds the complaint is frivolous

22 and the action is DISMISSED with prejudice.

23 I. SCREENING

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4 II. PLEADING STANDARDS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

13 512 (2002). Conclusory and vague allegations do not support a cause of action. Ivey v. Board of

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the

20 reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the

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

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

sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.

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

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

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

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

25 III. ALLEGATIONS

26 Plaintiff names the “Royal Family of England” as the sole defendant. Doc. 1 at 1.

27 Plaintiff struck out all portions of the Court’s complaint form related to the identification of

28 claims and corresponding allegations, and the complaint indicates only that he seeks “equitable

1 relief.” Id. at 1-4. It appears that Plaintiff requests an order declaring his family to be the proper

2 royal family. See id. at 1, 3. Plaintiff did not sign the complaint, and but indicated that he is the

3 “Afrakan Keng” and “GAD” (sic). See id. at 3.

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). Upon review

14 of the pleading, Plaintiff’s complaint lacks an arguable basis in law and fact. Instead, it contains

15 only “fantastical claims” to support his request for “equitable” and declaratory relief. For these

16 reasons, the Court finds the complaint is frivolous.

17 To the extent Plaintiff’s allegations are based on a sovereign citizen ideology—as he

18 refers to himself as God and king—courts have rejected arguments premised on such ideology as

19 frivolous and meritless. See, e.g., United States v. Studley, 783 F.2d 934, 937 n.3 (9th Cir. 1986)

20 (rejected arguments premised on the sovereign ideology as “utterly meritless”); United States v.

21 Sterling, 738 F.3d 228, 233, n.1 (11th Cir. 2013) (noting courts “summarily reject[]” as frivolous

22 the legal theory of individuals who consider themselves sovereign and not subject to the

23 jurisdiction of the courts); United States v. Benabe, 654 F.3d 753, 761 (7th Cir. 2011)

24 (“[Sovereign citizen] theories should be rejected summarily, however they are presented”); see

25 also Mackey v. Bureau of Prisons, 2016 WL 3254037, at *1 (E.D. Cal. June 14, 2016).

26 V. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

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

28 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). Thus, the

5 | 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 February 9, 2026 (Doc. 8) 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