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-03466-EGC (PC)

McPHERSON,

12 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO

Plaintiff, DISMISS THIS ACTION AS FRIVOLOUS

13

v. 14-day Objection Deadline

14

Clerk of the Court to Assign District Judge

15 ROYAL FAMILY OF ENGLAND, et al.,

16 Defendants.

17

18

Plaintiff Michael Bruce Anthony McPherson is appearing pro se in this civil rights action

19

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983.

20

I. INTRODUCTION

21

Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a complaint and an application to proceed in forma

22

pauperis on May 5, 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).

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

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

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

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

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

6 III. PLEADING REQUIREMENTS

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

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

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

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

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

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

13 quotation marks & citation omitted).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3 B. Linkage and Causation

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

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

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

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

8 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998); see Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676 (“Because vicarious liability is

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

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

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

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

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

14 370-71, 375-77 (1976)). The Ninth Circuit has held that “[a] person ‘subjects’ another to the

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

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

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

18 743 (9th Cir. 1978) (citation omitted).

19 IV. DISCUSSION

20 A. Plaintiff’s Complaint

21 Plaintiff names the Royal Family of England as the sole defendant in this action. (Doc. 1

22 at 1-2.) He asserts a single claim for relief and identifies his constitutional or other federal right

23 violated as “Unlawful use of status with identity” and the issue involved as “Property.” (Id. at 5.)

24 By way of relief, he states: “Plaintiff calls upon the equitable powers of this court to issue a writ

25 of assistance, without bond, forthwith restoring possession of the manor and lands to Plaintiff and

26 an order terminating Defendants occupancy, following a discharge from custody (SATF).” (Id. at

27 8.) Accompanying the form complaint is a copy of the Judgment in a Civil Case in McPherson v.

1 B. Plaintiff’s Claim for Relief

2 The entirety of Plaintiff’s claim reads as follows:

3 On 04/06/2026, at Federal Court of Eastern District in an action then

pending in the United States District Court between (Michael Bruce

4 Anthony McPherson) and (Royal Family of England), who are the

Defendant/Plaintiff and Plaintiff/Defendant respectively in this

5 action, and on the same claim/cause of action as that set forth in the

complaint, final judgment was given and made (declaring Plaintiff’s

6 family, in fact, the original Royal Family of England and Plaintiff the

original Afrakan Keng and Gad, in support of equitable and

7 declaratory relief), on the merits of the case, the claim/cause of action

set forth in Plaintiff’s complaint is barred by the judgment, which is

8 in full force and effect.

9 (See Doc. 1 at 5.) Plaintiff asserts the following injury: “I just need what is found that was lost.”

10 (Id.)

11 C. Analysis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

20 A review of Plaintiff's complaint establishes that it is frivolous because the facts alleged

21 are irrational and wholly incredible. Denton, 504 U.S. at 32-33. First, despite Plaintiff’s assertion

22 otherwise, the judgment entered on April 6, 2026, in McPherson v. Royal Family of England,

23 case number 1:26-cv-00708-KES-EPG, did not declare Plaintiff or his family to be the “original

24 Royal Family of England” nor did it award him any relief at all. Rather, a review of the docket for

25 that action reveals the action was dismissed, with prejudice, as frivolous. (See 26-cv-708 docket;

26 Doc. 12.) Therefore, the case was closed and judgment was entered accordingly. (26-cv-708

27 docket; Doc. 13.) Moreover, for that same reason, the complaint is based on an indisputably

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

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

3 frivolous, granting Plaintiff leave to amend his complaint would be futile. Lopez v. Smith, 203

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

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

6 amend”).

7 Therefore, the undersigned will recommend this action be dismissed.

8 V. ORDER AND RECOMMENDATION

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

10 this action.

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

12 action be dismissed, with prejudice, as frivolous and that the case be closed.

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

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

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

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

17 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations” and shall not exceed fifteen (15) pages

18 without leave of Court and good cause shown. The Court will not consider exhibits attached to

19 the Objections. To the extent a party wishes to refer to any exhibit(s), the party should reference

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

21 reference the exhibit with specificity. Any pages filed in excess of the fifteen (15) page limitation

22 may be disregarded by the District Judge when reviewing these Findings and Recommendations

23 under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(C). A party’s failure to file any objections within the specified time

24 may result in the waiver of certain rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839

25 (9th Cir. 2014).

26

27

]

IT IS SO ORDERED. .

3 | Dated: _ May 7, 2026 Cn Lit de Cay lo

4 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28