Opinion

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 MICHAEL MCPHERSON, Case No. 1:26-cv-1022 KES SAB

aka Makal B. Makfarsan,

12 ORDER DISMISSING ACTION AS

Plaintiff, FRIVOLOUS, DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

13 APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS, TERMINATING FINDINGS AND

14 v. RECOMMENDATIONS AS MOOT, AND

DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE

15 FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, et al., CASE

16 Defendants. Docs. 2, 10

17

18 Michael McPherson, also known as Makal B. Makfarsan, seeks to proceed in forma

19 pauperis in this civil action. Plaintiff names the “Federal Government” and Rob Bonta, Attorney

20 General of California, as the defendants, and seeks to hold them liable for unspecified “human

21 rights violations.” Id. at 1-2, 5-8. For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds the complaint

22 is frivolous 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, and the

12 grounds upon which the complaint stands. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 512

13 (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 Federal Government and the California Attorney General as the

27 defendants in this action Doc. 1 at 1-2. Plaintiff asserts that he is God and that the Federal

28 Government violates his holy law and interferes with his worship. Id. at 8. Plaintiff contends the

1 defendants have no rights to keep him in prison and appears to seek declaratory relief. See id. at

2 11.

3 IV. DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

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

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

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

7 319, 325, 328 (1989) (finding claims may be dismissed as “frivolous” where the allegations are

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

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

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

11 13, 2021) (citing Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327). A review of Plaintiff’s complaint establishes that it

12 contains fantastical claims. Although much of it is illegible, it appears that Plaintiff asserts he is

13 God, disagrees with various laws, and asserts the Government lacks authority to keep him

14 incarcerated given his status as God. The complaint lacks an arguable basis in law or fact.

15 To the extent Plaintiff’s claim for human rights violations is based upon a sovereign

16 citizen ideology—as he refers to himself as God—courts have rejected arguments premised on

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

18 n.3 (9th Cir. 1986) (rejecting arguments premised on sovereign ideology as “utterly meritless”);

19 United States v. Sterling, 738 F.3d 228, 233, n.1 (11th Cir. 2013) (noting courts “summarily

20 reject[]” as frivolous the legal theory of individuals who consider themselves sovereign and not

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

22 2011) (“[Sovereign citizen] theories should be rejected summarily, however they are presented”);

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

24 V. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

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

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

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

28 to amend.”). Where, as here, the complaint is frivolous, the “district court may deny leave to

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

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

3 | Court also denies Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis.

4 The Court ORDERS:

5 1. Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED without leave to amend as frivolous.

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

7 3. The findings and recommendations dated March 9, 2026 (Doc. 10) are terminated

8 as MOOT.

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

10

1]

12 | ITIS SO ORDERED. _

13 Dated: _ April 6, 2026 4h | |

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28