The 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-04156-EGC (PC)
McPHERSON,
12 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO
Plaintiff, DISMISS ACTION AS FRIVOLOUS
13
v. (Doc. 1)
14
14-Day Objection Period
15 JENNIFER L. THURSTON,
Clerk of the Court to Assign District Judge
16 Defendant.
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. SCREENING REQUIREMENT
21
The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a
22
governmental entity or an officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).
23
The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the complaint is frivolous or malicious,
24
fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant
25
who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). The Court should dismiss a complaint if
26
it lacks a cognizable legal theory or fails to allege sufficient facts to support a cognizable legal
27
theory. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).
1
2 II. PLEADING REQUIREMENTS
3 A. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)
4 “Rule 8(a)’s simplified pleading standard applies to all civil actions, with limited
5 exceptions.” Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 513 (2002). A complaint must contain
6 “a short and plain statement of the claims showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R.
7 Civ. P. 8(a)(2). “Such a statement must simply give the defendant fair notice of what the
8 plaintiff’s claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Swierkiewicz, 534 U.S. at 512 (internal
9 quotation marks & citation omitted).
10 Detailed factual allegations are not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a
11 cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
12 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Plaintiff must
13 set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim that is plausible on its face.’”
14 Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). Factual allegations are accepted as true, but legal
15 conclusions are not. Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).
16 The Court construes pleadings of pro se prisoners liberally and affords them the benefit of
17 any doubt. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted). However, “the
18 liberal pleading standard . . . applies only to a plaintiff’s factual allegations,” not his legal
19 theories. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 330 n.9 (1989). Furthermore, “a liberal interpretation
20 of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements of the claim that were not initially
21 pled,” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (internal
22 quotation marks & citation omitted), and courts “are not required to indulge unwarranted
23 inferences.” Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation
24 marks & citation omitted). The “sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully” is not
25 sufficient to state a cognizable claim, and “facts that are merely consistent with a defendant’s
26 liability” fall short. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (internal quotation marks & citation omitted).
27 B. Linkage and Causation
1 rights by persons acting under color of state law. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983. To state a claim under
2 section 1983, a “plaintiff must allege facts, not simply conclusions, that show that an individual
3 was personally involved in the deprivation of his civil rights.” Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d
4 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998); see Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676 (“Because vicarious liability is
5 inapplicable to Bivens and § 1983 suits, a plaintiff must plead that each Government-official
6 defendant, through the official’s own individual actions, has violated the Constitution”); Leer v.
7 Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 633 (9th Cir. 1988) (“The inquiry into causation must be individualized
8 and focus on the duties and responsibilities of each individual defendant whose acts or omissions
9 are alleged to have caused a constitutional deprivation” (citing Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362,
10 370-71, 375-77 (1976)). The Ninth Circuit has held that “[a] person ‘subjects’ another to the
11 deprivation of a constitutional right, within the meaning of section 1983, if he does an affirmative
12 act, participates in another’s affirmative acts, or omits to perform an act which he is legal required
13 to do that causes the deprivation of which complaint is made.” Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740,
14 743 (9th Cir. 1978) (citation omitted).
15 III. DISCUSSION
16 A. Plaintiff’s Complaint
17 Plaintiff identifies “Jennifer L. Thurston” as the sole defendant in this action. (Doc. 1 at 1-
18 2.) Asked about previous lawsuits filed while a prisoner, Plaintiff wrote “N/A.” (Id. at 2.) He
19 asserts a single claim for relief and identifies his constitutional or other federal right violated as
20 “Failure to Act on a Ministerial Duty” and the issue involved as “Other: Negligence.” (Id. at 3.)
21 By way of relief, Plaintiff seeks the following: “Order the Clerk Directly, to Send an Order
22 Directly to (SATF Prison) and Order the Prison to Directly Release Me from Prison, Discharged
23 Me from Custody Immediately.” (Id. at 6.)
24 B. Plaintiff’s Sole Claim for Relief
25 The entirety of Plaintiff’s claim reads as follows:
26 On 4/30/2026 at 07:41 AM PDT, through a “Judicial Declaration”
signed by (USMJ Christopher D. Baker) which acknowledged that “I
27 am Royal Sovereign, King and God” also “Release from Prison,
Discharge from Custody Immediately” and “restored Royal Status
1 02853-JLT-CDB.
2 This is established by a court declaration in which United States
District Judge Jennifer L. Thurston refused a “absolute duty”
3 required by law owed to “God” or “the sovereign.”
4 According to law and principles, sovereign has no limits of restraints
and or not subjected to law.
5
6 (See Doc. 1 at 3.) Plaintiff entered “N/A” under the “Injury” and “Administrative Remedies”
7 sections. (Id.)
8 C. Analysis
9 A claim is frivolous “when the facts alleged arise to the level of the irrational or the
10 wholly incredible, whether or not there are judicially noticeable facts available to contradict
11 them.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992); see also Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 325, 328
12 (finding claims may be dismissed as “frivolous” where the allegations are “fanciful” or
13 “describe[e] fantastic or delusional scenarios”). “The Court may ... dismiss a claim as frivolous
14 where it is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are
15 clearly baseless.” Howell v. Johnson, No. 2:21-cv-0997-CKD P, 2021 WL 3602139, at *1 (E.D.
16 Cal. Aug. 13, 2021) (citing Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327).
17 A review of Plaintiff's complaint reveals its factual contentions are clearly baseless.
18 Plaintiff alleges Magistrate Judge Chistopher D. Baker issued and signed a “‘Judicial
19 Declaration’” on April 30, 2026, in case number 1:26-cv-02853-JLT-CDB, acknowledging
20 Plaintiff as a “‘’Royal, Sovereign, King and God,’” required his “‘discharge from custody
21 immediately’” and “‘restored Royal status ….’” A review of the docket for that action reveals
22 otherwise.
23 More specifically, on April 30, 2026, Judge Baker issued Findings and Recommendations
24 to Dismiss Action as Frivolous. (Doc. 9.) The language Plaintiff relies upon in his complaint here
25 is merely Judge Baker’s recitation of Plaintiff’s claim in that case. (See 2:26-2853 Docket, Entry
26 No. 9 at 4.) In his analysis, Judge Baker concluded Plaintiff’s complaint contained “fantastical
27 claims” and thus recommended it be dismissed as frivolous. (Id. at 4-5.) Those findings are not a
“Judicial Declaration” requiring District Judge Jennifer L. Thurston to release Plaintiff from
1 custody. Judge Baker made no such finding. In fact, the only duty required of Judge Thurston
2 following issuance of the Findings and Recommendations was performed on May 18, 2026,
3 when, following a de novo review, Judge Thurston issued her Order Adopting Findings and
4 Recommendations to Dismiss Action as Frivolous. (Doc. 11.) That same date, judgment was
5 entered (Doc. 12) and the case was closed.
6 Simply put, Plaintiff’s complaint is frivolous because his claim is irrational, fantastical
7 and clearly baseless. Denton, 504 U.S. at 32-33; Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 325, 328; Howell, 2021 WL
8 3602139, at *1. And because Plaintiff’s complaint is frivolous, granting Plaintiff leave to amend
9 his complaint would be futile. See Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105-06 (9th Cir. 1995).
10 Therefore, the undersigned will recommend this action be dismissed.
11 IV. ORDER AND RECOMMENDATION
12 Accordingly, the Court directs the Clerk of the Court to randomly assign a district judge to
13 this action.
14 Further, for the reasons stated above, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that
15 Plaintiff’s complaint be DISMISSED as frivolous and without leave to amend, and that this
16 action be closed.
17 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District
18 Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days
19 after being served with a copy of these Findings and Recommendations, a party may file written
20 objections with the Court. Local Rule 304(b). The document should be captioned, “Objections to
21 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations” and shall not exceed fifteen (15) pages
22 without leave of Court and good cause shown. The Court will not consider exhibits attached to
23 the Objections. To the extent a party wishes to refer to any exhibit(s), the party should reference
24 the exhibit in the record by its CM/ECF document and page number, when possible, or otherwise
25 reference the exhibit with specificity. Any pages filed in excess of the fifteen (15) page limitation
26 may be disregarded by the District Judge when reviewing these Findings and Recommendations
27 under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(C). A party’s failure to file any objections within the specified time
1 | may result in the waiver of certain rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839
2 | (9th Cir. 2014).
3
4 IT IS SO ORDERED. .
5 | Dated: _ June 3, 2026 Cn Un. de
‘ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28