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-04159-EGC (PC)
McPHERSON,
12 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO
Plaintiff, DISMISS ACTION AS FRIVOLOUS
13
v. (Doc. 1)
14
14-Day Objection Period
15 V. GRANDELL,
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 Correctional Counselor I V. Grandell1 at the Substance Abuse
18 Treatment Facility as the sole defendant in this action. (Doc. 1 at 1-2.) Asked about previous
19 lawsuits, Plaintiff affirmed that he had filed other lawsuits while a prisoner, but when asked how
20 many he has filed, Plaintiff wrote “N/A.” (Id. at 2.) He asserts a single claim for relief and
21 identifies his constitutional or other federal right violated as “CCI V. Grandell Threaten to Kill
22 Me” and the issue involved as “Threat to Safety.” (Id. at 3.) By way of relief, Plaintiff seeks the
23 following: “And any other relief, remedy, equity, equitable, declaratory judgment or declaratory
24 relief that is substantially fair because I’m not doing for no body in prison or outside prison.” (Id.
25 at 18.) Attached to the complaint are the following notarized documents: (1) “Declaration, Name
26 and Ownership” (id. at 4-5); (2) “Declaration, Domain and Dominion Ownership” (id. at 6-7); (3)
27
1
1 “Declaration, Manor Independence Authority” (id. at 8-9); (4) “Declaration, USA Owner” (id. at
2 10-11); (5) “Declaration of Military Ownership” (id. at 12-13); and (6) “Declaration, Statute [sic]
3 of Liberty” (Id. at 14-15).
4 B. Plaintiff’s Sole Claim for Relief
5 The entirety of Plaintiff’s claim reads as follows:
6 On 4/30/2026 at 07:41 AM PDT, through a “Judicial Declaration”
signed by (USMJ Christopher D. Baker) which acknowledged that “I
7 am Royal Sovereign, King and God” also “Release from Prison,
Discharge from Custody Immediately” and “restored Royal Status
8 and all my Property in my Quitclaim Deed, in Case No. 1:26-cv-
02853-JLT-CDB.
9
This is established by a court declaration in which United States
10 District Judge Jennifer L. Thurston refused a “absolute duty”
required by law owed to “God” or “the sovereign.”
11
According to law and principles, sovereign has no limits of restraints
12 and or not subjected to law.
13
(See Doc. 1 at 3.) Plaintiff entered “N/A” under the “Injury” and “Administrative Remedies”
14
sections. (Id.)
15
C. Analysis
16
A claim is frivolous “when the facts alleged arise to the level of the irrational or the
17
wholly incredible, whether or not there are judicially noticeable facts available to contradict
18
them.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992); see also Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 325, 328
19
(finding claims may be dismissed as “frivolous” where the allegations are “fanciful” or
20
“describe[e] fantastic or delusional scenarios”). “The Court may ... dismiss a claim as frivolous
21
where it is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are
22
clearly baseless.” Howell v. Johnson, No. 2:21-cv-0997-CKD P, 2021 WL 3602139, at *1 (E.D.
23
Cal. Aug. 13, 2021) (citing Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327).
24
A review of Plaintiff's complaint reveals its factual contentions are clearly baseless.
25
Plaintiff alleges Magistrate Judge Chistopher D. Baker issued and signed a “‘Judicial
26
Declaration’” on April 30, 2026, in case number 1:26-cv-02853-JLT-CDB, acknowledging
27
Plaintiff as a “‘’Royal, Sovereign, King and God,’” required his “‘discharge from custody
1 immediately’” and “‘restored Royal status ….’” A review of the docket for that action reveals
2 otherwise.
3 More specifically, on April 30, 2026, Judge Baker issued Findings and Recommendations
4 to Dismiss Action as Frivolous. (Doc. 9.) The language Plaintiff relies upon in his complaint here
5 is merely Judge Baker’s recitation of Plaintiff’s claim in that case. (See 2:26-2853 Docket, Entry
6 No. 9 at 4.) In his analysis, Judge Baker concluded Plaintiff’s complaint contained “fantastical
7 claims” and thus recommended it be dismissed as frivolous. (Id. at 4-5.) Those findings are not a
8 “Judicial Declaration” requiring District Judge Jennifer L. Thurston to release Plaintiff from
9 custody. Judge Baker made no such finding. In fact, the only duty required of Judge Thurston
10 following issuance of the Findings and Recommendations was performed on May 18, 2026,
11 when, following a de novo review, Judge Thurston issued her Order Adopting Findings and
12 Recommendations to Dismiss Action as Frivolous. (Doc. 11.) That same date, judgment was
13 entered (Doc. 12) and the case was closed.
14 Further, the Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s exhibits. None support his claim here. The
15 various declarations were prepared by Plaintiff and are simply irrational or nonsensical. For
16 example, in the “Declaration, Name and Ownership,” Plaintiff states: “LORD. Title “Document
17 Rose Origin, Liberty, One Rose Document” and “KENG. Title “Government National England
18 Kuran England National Gad.” (Doc. 1 at 4; see also Doc. 1 at 6, 8, 10, 12, 14.)
19 To the extent Plaintiff alleges “CCI V. Grandell threaten to kill me” (see Doc. 1 at 3) that
20 assertion does not state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d
21 1108, 1113 (9th Cir. 2012) (the verbal exchange of offensive insults between inmates and guards
22 do not rise to the level of an Eighth Amendment violation); Oltarzewski v. Ruggiero, 830 F2d
23 136, 139 (9th Cir. 1987) (mere verbal harassment or abuse does not violation the Constitution and
24 does not give rise to a claim for relief under § 1983).
25 Simply put, Plaintiff’s complaint is frivolous because his claim is irrational, fantastical
26 and clearly baseless. Denton, 504 U.S. at 32-33; Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 325, 328; Howell, 2021 WL
27 3602139, at *1. And because Plaintiff’s complaint is frivolous, granting Plaintiff leave to amend
1 | Therefore, the undersigned will recommend this action be dismissed.
2 IV. ORDER AND RECOMMENDATION
3 Accordingly, the Court directs the Clerk of the Court to randomly assign a district judge to
4 | this action.
5 Further, for the reasons stated above, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that
6 | Plaintiff's complaint be DISMISSED as frivolous and without leave to amend, and that this
7 | action be closed.
8 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District
9 | Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within 14 days
10 | after being served with a copy of these Findings and Recommendations, a party may file written
11 | objections with the Court. Local Rule 304(b). The document should be captioned, “Objections to
12 | Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations” and shall not exceed fifteen (15) pages
13 | without leave of Court and good cause shown. The Court will not consider exhibits attached to
14 || the Objections. To the extent a party wishes to refer to any exhibit(s), the party should reference
15 | the exhibit in the record by its CM/ECF document and page number, when possible, or otherwise
16 | reference the exhibit with specificity. Any pages filed in excess of the fifteen (15) page limitation
17 | may be disregarded by the District Judge when reviewing these Findings and Recommendations
18 | under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). A party’s failure to file any objections within the specified time
19 | may result in the waiver of certain rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839
20 | (9th Cir. 2014).
21
IT IS SO ORDERED. .
23 | Dated: _ June 8, 2026 Cn Un. de | Gxllo
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
25
26
27
28