The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 MAKAL BRUSAMTONE Case No.: 1:26-cv-02853-JLT-CDB (PC)
MAKFARSAN,
12 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO
Plaintiff, DISMISS ACTION AS FRIVOLOUS
13
v. 14-Day Objection Period
14
ROB BONTA, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
17
18 Plaintiff Makal Brusamtone Makfarsan, also known as Michael McPherson, is appearing
19 pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to Title 42 of the United States Code section 1983.
20 I. INTRODUCTION
21 Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a complaint and an application to proceed in forma
22 pauperis on April 15, 2026. (Docs. 1 & 2.)
23 Following a review of the complaint, the undersigned will recommend this action be
24 dismissed as frivolous.
25 II. SCREENING REQUIREMENT
26 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a
27 governmental entity or an officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).
The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the complaint is frivolous or malicious,
1 fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant
2 who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). The Court should dismiss a complaint if
3 it lacks a cognizable legal theory or fails to allege sufficient facts to support a cognizable legal
4 theory. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).
5 III. PLEADING REQUIREMENTS
6 A. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)
7 “Rule 8(a)’s simplified pleading standard applies to all civil actions, with limited
8 exceptions.” Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 513 (2002). A complaint must contain
9 “a short and plain statement of the claims showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R.
10 Civ. P. 8(a)(2). “Such a statement must simply give the defendant fair notice of what the
11 plaintiff’s claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Swierkiewicz, 534 U.S. at 512 (internal
12 quotation marks & citation omitted).
13 Detailed factual allegations are not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a
14 cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
15 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Plaintiff must
16 set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim that is plausible on its face.’”
17 Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). Factual allegations are accepted as true, but legal
18 conclusions are not. Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).
19 The Court construes pleadings of pro se prisoners liberally and affords them the benefit of
20 any doubt. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted). However, “the
21 liberal pleading standard . . . applies only to a plaintiff’s factual allegations,” not his legal
22 theories. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 330 n.9 (1989). Furthermore, “a liberal interpretation
23 of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements of the claim that were not initially
24 pled,” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (internal
25 quotation marks & citation omitted), and courts “are not required to indulge unwarranted
26 inferences.” Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation
27 marks & citation omitted). The “sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully” is not
1 liability” fall short. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (internal quotation marks & citation omitted).
2 B. Linkage and Causation
3 Section 1983 provides a cause of action for the violation of constitutional or other federal
4 rights by persons acting under color of state law. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983. To state a claim under
5 section 1983, a “plaintiff must allege facts, not simply conclusions, that show that an individual
6 was personally involved in the deprivation of his civil rights.” Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d
7 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998); see Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676 (“Because vicarious liability is
8 inapplicable to Bivens and § 1983 suits, a plaintiff must plead that each Government-official
9 defendant, through the official’s own individual actions, has violated the Constitution”); Leer v.
10 Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 633 (9th Cir. 1988) (“The inquiry into causation must be individualized
11 and focus on the duties and responsibilities of each individual defendant whose acts or omissions
12 are alleged to have caused a constitutional deprivation” (citing Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362,
13 370-71, 375-77 (1976)). The Ninth Circuit has held that “[a] person ‘subjects’ another to the
14 deprivation of a constitutional right, within the meaning of section 1983, if he does an affirmative
15 act, participates in another’s affirmative acts, or omits to perform an act which he is legal required
16 to do that causes the deprivation of which complaint is made.” Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740,
17 743 (9th Cir. 1978) (citation omitted).
18 IV. DISCUSSION
19 A. Plaintiff’s Complaint
20 Plaintiff names California Attorney General Rob Bonta and California Substance Abuse
21 Treatment Facility (SATF) Warden Raul Morales as defendants in this action. (Doc. 1 at 1-2.) He
22 asserts a single claim for relief and identifies his constitutional or other federal right violated as
23 “‘Equitable and Declaratory Relief is Given; I am Royal & Sovereign & Keng & Gad’” and the
24 issue involved as “Threat to safety.” (Id. at 6.) By way of relief, Plaintiff seeks “‘Release From
25 Prison, Discharge From Custody Immediately’” and “‘Restored Royal Status And All Property in
26 My Quitclaim Deed.’” (Id. at 9.) Accompanying the form complaint are a “Quitclaim Deed” (id.
27 at 4) and a “Declaration Of Original Royal Family Of England” (id. at 5).
1 B. Plaintiff’s Claim for Relief
2 The entirety of Plaintiff’s claim reads as follows:
3 A decree was entered on 04/06/2026 for equitable and declaratory
relief. Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean and District Judge Kirk
4 E. Sherriff signed a new declaration of my independence as the
original Keng and Gad, including my family “Perrymans” as the
5 original “Royal Family.” In my declaration, the judge stated: it only
contains “fantastical claims” to support my request for “equitable”
6 and declaratory relief. Where there’s no remedy at law for
sovereign reasons, given my status as Gad and Keng. “Gad” means,
7 title: “Government Andapandant Declaration.” “Keng” means, title:
“Government National ev Kuran England National Gad.”
8 “Perryman” means, title: “National America Manor, Your Rose
Races, Earth, Pian, England Royal Race Year, Makfarsan America
9 National.” “Royal” means, title: “liberty, Andapandans, yellow,
orange, red; one, your andapandant liberty.”
10
11 (See Doc. 1 at 6.) Plaintiff states his “[i]njury as follows: “’Now I have supreme authority to care
12 for all my races, all my land, and my government including all my property.’” (Id.)
13 C. Analysis
14 A claim is frivolous “when the facts alleged arise to the level of the irrational or the
15 wholly incredible, whether or not there are judicially noticeable facts available to contradict
16 them.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992); see Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 325, 328
17 (finding claims may be dismissed as “frivolous” where the allegations are “fanciful” or
18 “describe[e] fantastic or delusional scenarios”). “The Court may ... dismiss a claim as frivolous
19 where it is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are
20 clearly baseless.” Howell v. Johnson, No. 2:21-cv-0997-CKD P, 2021 WL 3602139, at *1 (E.D.
21 Cal. Aug. 13, 2021) (citing Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327).
22 A review of Plaintiff's complaint establishes that it contains fantastical claims. Although
23 much of it is illegible and difficult to decipher, it appears that Plaintiff asserts he is God and/or
24 King over the United States of America and the United Kingdom. Additionally, Plaintiff’s
25 “Quitclaim Deed” and “Declaration” offered in support of his claim are nonsensical and/or
26 fantastical. For example, the “Quitclaim Deed” claims that Plaintiff “owns dad [the]
27 government.” (Id. at 4.) The “Declaration” includes a list of first names (Dennis, Floyd, Mackey,
1 ”Makfarsan” and makes various references to “manor[s],” “crown[s],” land and sea ownership,
2 Hollywood, and other nonsensical words and phrases. (Id. at 5).
3 Simply put, Plaintiff’s complaint is frivolous. Denton, 504 U.S. at 32-33; Neitzke, 490
4 U.S. at 325, 328; Howell, 2021 WL 3602139, at *1. And because Plaintiff’s complaint is
5 frivolous, granting Plaintiff leave to amend his complaint would be futile. See Steel Co. v.
6 Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83, 89 (1998) (holding federal courts lack subject
7 matter jurisdiction to consider claims that are “so insubstantial, implausible, foreclosed by prior
8 decisions of this court, or otherwise completely devoid of merit as not to involve a federal
9 controversy.”). Therefore, the undersigned will recommend this action be dismissed.
10 V. ORDER AND RECOMMENDATION
11 Accordingly, the Court directs the Clerk of the Court to randomly assign a district judge to
12 this action.
13 Further, for the reasons stated above, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS Plaintiff’s
14 claim in this action be dismissed as frivolous and that the case be closed.
15 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District
16 Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days
17 after being served with a copy of these Findings and Recommendations, a party may file written
18 objections with the Court. Local Rule 304(b). The document should be captioned, “Objections to
19 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations” and shall not exceed 15 pages without
20 leave of Court and good cause shown. The Court will not consider exhibits attached to the
21 Objections. To the extent a party wishes to refer to any exhibit(s), the party should reference the
22 exhibit in the record by its CM/ECF document and page number, when possible, or otherwise
23 reference the exhibit with specificity. Any pages filed in excess of the 15-page limitation may be
24 disregarded by the District Judge when reviewing these Findings and Recommendations under 28
25 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(C).
26 ///
27 ///
] A party’s failure to file any objections within the specified time may result in the waiver
2 | of certain rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014).
3 | ITIS SO ORDERED.
* | Dated: _ April 30, 2026 | bo
5 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
6
7
8
9
10
1]
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28