Bonta

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-00707-CDB

McPHERSON,

12 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO

Plaintiff, DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM AS

13 FRIVOLOUS FOLLOWING SCREENING

v.

14 14-day Objection Deadline

ROB BONTA, Attorney General,

15 Clerk of the Court to Assign District Judge

Defendant.

16

17

18 Plaintiff Michael Bruce Anthony McPherson, also known as Makal Brusamtone

19

Makfarsan,1 is appearing pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to Title 42 of the United States

20 Code section 1983.

21 I. SCREENING REQUIREMENT

22 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a

23 governmental entity or an officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).

24 The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the complaint is frivolous or malicious,

25 fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant

26 who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). The Court should dismiss a complaint if

27

1 Plaintiff used this name in his complaint. Nevertheless, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

1 it lacks a cognizable legal theory or fails to allege sufficient facts to support a cognizable legal

2 theory. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

3 II. PLEADING REQUIREMENTS

4 A. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)

5 “Rule 8(a)’s simplified pleading standard applies to all civil actions, with limited

6 exceptions.” Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 513 (2002). A complaint must contain

7 “a short and plain statement of the claims showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R.

8 Civ. P. 8(a)(2). “Such a statement must simply give the defendant fair notice of what the

9 plaintiff’s claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Swierkiewicz, 534 U.S. at 512 (internal

10 quotation marks & citation omitted).

11 Detailed factual allegations are not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a

12 cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556

13 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Plaintiff must

14 set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim that is plausible on its face.’”

15 Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). Factual allegations are accepted as true, but legal

16 conclusions are not. Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).

17 The Court construes pleadings of pro se prisoners liberally and affords them the benefit of

18 any doubt. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted). However, “the

19 liberal pleading standard . . . applies only to a plaintiff’s factual allegations,” not his legal

20 theories. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 330 n.9 (1989). Furthermore, “a liberal interpretation

21 of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements of the claim that were not initially

22 pled,” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (internal

23 quotation marks & citation omitted), and courts “are not required to indulge unwarranted

24 inferences.” Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation

25 marks & citation omitted). The “sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully” is not

26 sufficient to state a cognizable claim, and “facts that are merely consistent with a defendant’s

27 liability” fall short. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (internal quotation marks & citation omitted).

1 B. Linkage and Causation

2 Section 1983 provides a cause of action for the violation of constitutional or other federal

3 rights by persons acting under color of state law. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983. To state a claim under

4 section 1983, a “plaintiff must allege facts, not simply conclusions, that show that an individual

5 was personally involved in the deprivation of his civil rights.” Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d

6 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998); see Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676 (“Because vicarious liability is

7 inapplicable to Bivens and § 1983 suits, a plaintiff must plead that each Government-official

8 defendant, through the official’s own individual actions, has violated the Constitution”); Leer v.

9 Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 633 (9th Cir. 1988) (“The inquiry into causation must be individualized

10 and focus on the duties and responsibilities of each individual defendant whose acts or omissions

11 are alleged to have caused a constitutional deprivation” (citing Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362,

12 370-71, 375-77 (1976)). The Ninth Circuit has held that “[a] person ‘subjects’ another to the

13 deprivation of a constitutional right, within the meaning of section 1983, if he does an affirmative

14 act, participates in another’s affirmative acts, or omits to perform an act which he is legal required

15 to do that causes the deprivation of which complaint is made.” Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740,

16 743 (9th Cir. 1978) (citation omitted).

17 III. DISCUSSION

18 A. Plaintiff’s Complaint

19 Plaintiff names California Attorney General Rob Bonta as the sole defendant in this

20 action. (Doc. 1 at 2.) He asserts a single claim for relief and identifies his constitutional or other

21 federal right violated as “Quiet Title Action” and the issue involved as “Other: Real Property.”

22 (Id. at 3.) By way of relief, Plaintiff seeks his “leyef back [life back].” (Id. at 14.) Accompanying

23 the form complaint are a “Deed” (id. at 4-7), a “Quitclaim Deed” (id. at 8-10), and a “Declaration

24 that Eye Am Gad & Keng” (id. at 11).

25

26 *****Remainder of this page intentionally left blank*****

27

1 B. Plaintiff's Sole Claim for Relief

2 The entirety of Plaintiff's Claim reads as follows:

3

4 Aska ofvoa\Tose MArkcavone: tele." Whler ol erage Loc, m\ ceAAn), Kp ez, Apa)

Od wad otle 4% op Arye hep we ng FOYP\Te [7 Dp nk fs one

iL ateeh ont Heltah te) blake dadetit_EodGA lanl of cate a _nesbksoe □□□□

BTS At Pl here." Kerltz, Zaco, Ml Apel. 0) CoriPe) nl SPA

= A = eon Yond: dow 4. 0x PE cen ar Coke ww _bAD Pal □□□

d ‘ erence mene geese pipers oe

12 4. Injury. State how you were injured by the actions or inactions of the Defendants). □

14 |teteGe fo ee dntye to whl CopleZobAobt ett Ave lod ty aleaelld Korner Ape

I5 (See Doc. 1 at 3.)

16 C. Analysis

17 A claim 1s frivolous “when the facts alleged arise to the level of the irrational or the

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

19 them.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992); see also Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 325, 328

20 (finding claims may be dismissed as “frivolous” where the allegations are “fanciful” or

21 “describe[e] fantastic or delusional scenarios”). “The Court may ... dismiss a claim as frivolous

22 | where it is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are

23 clearly baseless.” Howell v. Johnson, No. 2:21-cv-0997-CKD P, 2021 WL 3602139, at *1 (E.D.

24 | Cal. Aug. 13, 2021) (citing Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327).

25 A review of Plaintiff's complaint establishes that 1t contains fantastical claims. Although

26 | much of it is illegible and difficult to decipher, it appears that Plaintiff asserts he is God and/or

27 King over various government agencies, races and countries, and further asserts Plaintiff's name

28 | was misappropriated, his land, pyramid, and sea were damaged, and the government is “using

1 [his] law to illegally konvikt [convict]” him. Additionally, Plaintiff’s “Deed” and Quitclaim

2 Deed,” offered in support of his claim, are nonsensical and/or fantastical. For example, the

3 “Deed” claims that Plaintiff is “Keng af law [King of law],” and state he is “Gad [of the]

4 Uneyetad States af Amaraka [God of the United States of America]” and “Royate, San af Man

5 [Royalty, Son of Man].” (Id. at 4.) Thereafter follows a colored depiction of a pyramid (id.) and a

6 list of titles associated with various words (id. at 5-6). The “Quitclaim Deed” is much the same

7 (id. at 8-9) and the “Declaration That Eye Am Gad & Keng” includes a list of current and former

8 magistrate and district judges in the Eastern District, as well as individuals in the Clerk’s Office

9 (id. at 11).

10 Simply put, Plaintiff’s complaint is frivolous. Denton, 504 U.S. at 32-33; Neitzke, 490

11 U.S. at 325, 328; Howell, 2021 WL 3602139, at *1. And because Plaintiff’s complaint is

12 frivolous, granting Plaintiff leave to amend his complaint would be futile. See Steel Co. v.

13 Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83, 89 (1998) (holding federal courts lack subject

14 matter jurisdiction to consider claims that are “so insubstantial, implausible, foreclosed by prior

15 decisions of this court, or otherwise completely devoid of merit as not to involve a federal

16 controversy.”). Therefore, the undersigned will recommend this action be dismissed.

17 IV. ORDER AND RECOMMENDATION

18 Accordingly, the Court directs the Clerk of the Court to randomly assign a district judge to

19 this action.

20 Further, for the reasons stated above, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS Plaintiff’s

21 claim in this action be dismissed as frivolous and that the case be closed.

22 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District

23 Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days

24 after being served with a copy of these Findings and Recommendations, a party may file written

25 objections with the Court. Local Rule 304(b). The document should be captioned, “Objections to

26 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations” and shall not exceed 15 pages without

27 leave of Court and good cause shown. The Court will not consider exhibits attached to the

1 | exhibit in the record by its CM/ECF document and page number, when possible, or otherwise

2 || reference the exhibit with specificity. Any pages filed in excess of the 15-page limitation may be

3 | disregarded by the District Judge when reviewing these Findings and Recommendations under 28

4 | US.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).

5 A party’s failure to file any objections within the specified time may result in the waiver

6 | of certain rights on appeal. Wilkerson vy. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014).

7 | ITISSO ORDERED.

Dated: _ April 29, 2026 | D bo

9 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

10

1]

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28