Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Ahmad Jamaleddin Aljindi, Petitioner v. United States, et al.
Supreme Court briefFeb 8, 2020
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
Case: 19-55926, 09/16/2019, ID: 11432253, DktEntry: 8, Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FILED
SEP 16 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U S. COURT OF APPEALS
AHMAD JAMALEDDIN ALJINDI,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
No.
19-55926
D.C. No.
8:19-cv-01434-DOC-E
Central District of California,
Santa Ana
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; et al.,
ORDER
Defendants-Appellees.
Before: WARDLAW, NGUYEN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Upon a review of the record and the response to the court’s August 19, 2019
order, we conclude this appeal is frivolous. We therefore deny appellant’s motion
to proceed in forma pauperis (Docket Entry No. 2), see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), and
dismiss this appeal as frivolous, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) (court shall
dismiss case at any time, if court determines it is frivolous or malicious).
All other pending motions are denied as moot.
DISMISSED.
KWH/MOATT
APPENDIX B
Case 8:19-cv-01434-DOC-E Document 8 Filed 08/05/19 Page lot 4 PagelD#:57
JS-6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
DR. AHMAD J. ALJINDI,
CASE NUMBER
SA CV 19-01434-DOC(Ex)
PLAINTIFF(S)
V.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al„
ORDER RE REQUEST TO PROCEED
IN FORMA PAUPERIS
DEFENDANT(S)
IT IS ORDERED that the Request to Proceed In Forma Pauperis is hereby GRANTED.
Date
United States Magistrate Judge
IT IS RECOMMENDED that the Request to Proceed In Forma Pauperis be DENIED for the following reason(s):
□ Inadequate showing of indigency
□ District Court lacks jurisdiction
13^Legally and/or factually patently frivolous
Q Immunity as to
[T^Other:
Comments: ^
t+A.
!
\
&)/)!?
Date
United States Magistrate Judge
IT IS ORDERED that the Request to Proceed In Forma Pauperis is hereby:
□ GRANTED
B DENIED (see comments above). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that:
ED Plaintiff SHALL PAY THE FILING FEES IN FULL within 30 days or this case will be dismissed.
0 This case is hereby DISMISSED immediately.
□ This case is hereby REMANDED to state court.
August 5, 2019
Date
CV-73 (08/16)
//jtvt'dd
United States District Judge
ORDER RE REQUEST TO PROCEED IN FORMA PA UPERJS
DAVID O. CARTER
Case 8:19-cv-01434-DOC-E Document 8 Filed 08/05/19 Page 2 of 4 PagelD#:58
ATTACHMENT
NO. SA CV 19-1434-DOC (Ex)
Plaintiff has submitted a forty-page proposed "Complaint for
Employment Discrimination" against the United States of America,
the Secretary of Defense, the Acting Secretary of the Department
of Homeland Security, the United States Attorney General, the
Acting Secretary of the Air Force, the Secretary of the Navy, the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs, the Director of National
Intelligence, the NASA Administrator and the Acting Administrator
of the Small Business Administration.
The confused, conclusory
and rambling allegations of the proposed Complaint are difficult
to decipher.
However, it does appear that Plaintiff alleges he
is an "AI scientist and researcher" whose intellectual property
was stolen by the Department of Defense and whose many efforts to
obtain federal employment have all been unsuccessful.
Plaintiff
allegedly has submitted "thousands" of employment applications to
various federal agencies over the years.
Plaintiff apparently
attributes his lack of success in obtaining federal employment to
supposed discrimination on the basis of race, religion and
national origin, as well as to alleged retaliation.
The proposed Complaint contains a list of "violations"
1
Case 8:19-cv-01434-DOC-E Documents Filed 08/05/19 Page 3 of 4 PagelD#:59
including, among other things, alleged "abuse of authority,"
"mismanagement," "[f]raud, forgery and fabricating formal
documents," "[stpying on [Plaintiff] illegally,"
"[a]dministrative corruption," "[i]ntentional waste and improper
usage of the federal funds," "[w]orking on increasing the
destablization over the nation [sic] and undermining the prestige
of the nation and American values," "Practicing and spreading the
fascism," " [i]ntentional increase of the sectarianism differences
[sic] and the hate between the American people," "Working against
the benefit of the national security and keeping the national
security at risk as they are intentionally preventing the proven
scientific knowledge illegally from serving the United States",
and "[t]he highest treason to the oath, the Constitution, and the
United States."
Plaintiff seeks an order requiring him to be
given "A GS-13 job, full-time, permanent position at the FBI,
within Southern California (Orange County), As an: a)
Intelligence Analyst (IA); or b) Management and Program Analyst;
or c) Any related and/or identical researching and/or analyzing
position based on the FBI's needs and as deemed appropriate by
the Honorable Court. . . ."
Plaintiff also appears to seek
$300,000 for every "EEO complaint" which Plaintiff allegedly
filed with a federal agency, back-pay at a GS-13 pay grade from
July 2016, relocation expenses, protection from reprisal, and
2
Case 8:19-cv-01434-DOC-E Document 8 Filed 08/05/19 Page 4 of 4 Page ID #:60
expungement of Plaintiff's "Eviction and Bankruptcy records."
The present proposed Complaint is substantially similar to a
complaint filed by Plaintiff in this Court in Aliindi v. United
States of America. SA CV 18-2301-SJO (JC).
On January 8, 2019,
the Court denied Plaintiff's request for leave to proceed in
forma.pauperis in the previous action, finding the proposed
complaint in that action to be frivolous, unintelligible,
delusional and "patently insufficient to state any rational , much
less plausible, claim for relief."
Complaint is similarly infirm.
The present proposed
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915; Denton v.
Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992); Neitzke v. Williams. 490 U.S.
319, 327-38 (1989).
Under the circumstances, leave to amend
would be futile.
3
APPENDIX C
Case: 19-55926, 12/31/2019, ID: 11548202, DktEntry: 15, Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FILED
DEC 31 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U S. COURT OF APPEALS
AHMAD JAMALEDDIN ALJINDI,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
No.
19-55926
D.C. No.
8:19-cv-01434-DOC-E
Central District of California,
Santa Ana
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; et al.,
ORDER
Defendants-Appellees.
Before: WARDLAW, NGUYEN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
The motion for reconsideration en banc (Docket Entry No. 9) is denied on
behalf of the court. See 9th Cir. R. 27-10; 9th Cir. Gen. Ord. 6.11. The motion for
reconsideration (Docket Entry No. 10) and emergency motion (Docket Entry No.
14) are denied.
No further filings will be entertained in this closed case.
KWH 19-/MOATT
Case: 19-55926, 01/08/2020, ID: 11554882, DktEntry: 16, Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FILED
JAN 08 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U S. COURT OF APPEALS
AHMAD JAMALEDDIN ALJINDI,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; et
al.,
No. 19-55926
D.C.No. 8:19-cv-01434-DOC-E
U.S. District Court for Central
California, Santa Ana
MANDATE
Defendants - Appellees.
The judgment of this Court, entered September 16, 2019, takes effect this
date.
This constitutes the formal mandate of this Court issued pursuant to Rule
41(a) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.
FOR THE COURT:
MOLLY C. DWYER
CLERK OF COURT
By: Rhonda Roberts
Deputy Clerk
Ninth Circuit Rule 27-7
APPENDIX D
Case 8:20-cv-00002-DOC-E Document 13 Filed 01/24/20 Page ! of 6 PagelD#:80
JS-6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
DR. AHMAD J. ALJINDI,
CASE NUMBER
SA CV 20-00002-DOC(Ex)
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et aL,
PLAINTIFF(S)
ORDER RE REQUEST TO PROCEED
IN FORMA PA UPERIS
DEFENDANT(S)
IT IS ORDERED that the Request to Proceed In Forma Pauperis is hereby GRANTED.
Date
United States Magistrate Judge
IT IS RECOMMENDED that the Request to Proceed In Forma Pauperis be DENIED for the following reason(s):
Q Inadequate showing of indigency
[7^Legally and/or factually patently frivolous
Q District Court lacks jurisdiction
□ Immunity as to____________________
GTOther:
Comments:
Date
United States Magistrate Judge
IT IS ORDERED that the Request to Proceed In Forma Pauperis is hereby:
□ GRANTED
0 DENIED (see comments above). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that:
□ Plaintiff SHALL PAY THE FILING FEES IN FULL within 30 days or this case will be dismissed.
@ This case is hereby DISMISSED immediately.
□ This case is hereby REMANDED to state court.
January 24,2020
Date
CV-73 (08/16)
David O. Carter
United States District Judge
ORDER RE REQUEST TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
Case 8:20-cv-00002-DOC-E Document 13 Filed 01/24/20 Page 2 of 6 PagelD#:81
ATTACHMENT
NO. SA CV 20-0002-DOC(Ex)
Plaintiff has submitted a thirty-four-page proposed
"Complaint for Employment Discrimination, Intellectual Property
Violations and Negligence and Tort."
Plaintiff purports to
assert claims against the United States of America, the Secretary
of Defense, the Acting Secretary of the "Department of Homeland
Security, United States Customs and Border Protection," the
United States Attorney General, the Secretary of the Air Force,
the Acting Secretary of the Navy, the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs, the Acting Director of National Intelligence, the NASA
Administrator, the Acting Administrator of the Small Business
Administration and the Postmaster General.
The proposed Complaint is confused and conclusory.
Plaintiff alleges he is an "Artificial Intelligence (AI)
researcher" whose intellectual property purportedly was stolen by
the Department of Defense and whose many efforts to obtain
federal employment assertedly have all been unsuccessful
(Proposed Complaint, pp. 3-4).
Plaintiff alleges that, despite
Plaintiff's "thousands" of job applications, hiring officials
assertedly chose less qualified candidates (id.. pp. 12, 16).
1
Case 8:20-cv-00002-DOC-E Document 13 Filed 01/24/20 Page 3 of 6 PagelD#:82
Plaintiff attributes his lack of success in obtaining federal
employment to supposed discrimination on the basis of race,
religion and national origin, as well as to alleged retaliation
(idL, pp. 3, 7, 16-23).
Plaintiff allegedly "has suffered
massively and is still currently suffering massively to death
from the ongoing negligence and tort" (id.. p. 5).
The proposed
Complaint contains few facts supporting these assertions, for the
most part providing merely a list of a large number of "EEO"
complaints Plaintiff assertedly has filed over the years.
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' actions prevented
Plaintiff "from securing himself a stable job based on his formal
qualifications and skills fairly and equally as set forth by the
United States Constitution such as ongoing sever [sic] poverty,
divorce, evictions, bankruptcy, homelessness, stress, discomfort
and extreme emotional pain" (id.. p. 25).
Plaintiff further
alleges Defendants caused injuries to Plaintiff's character,
reputation and credit standing (id.).
Plaintiff allegedly is
unable to eat more than once a day due to Defendants' alleged
wrongdoing (id.).
Plaintiff alleges Defendants violated various federal
statutes including the "No Fear Act," Title VII of the Civil
2
/
Case 8:20-cv-00002-DOC-E Document 13 Filed 01/24/20 Page 4 of 6 PagelD#:83
Rights Act of 1964, the Civil Service Reform Act of 1972 and the
Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 (id.. pp. 23-24) .
Plaintiff
also appears to alleged unspecified constitutional claims (id.).
Plaintiff seeks $300,000 for "every single EEO complaint"
which Plaintiff allegedly filed with a federal agency, in the
total sum of $32.7 million (id.. p. 32).
Plaintiff also seeks
"Maximum monetary Constitutional compensations for the
negligence, tort, and intellectual property and copyrights laws
[sic] violations as formally documented and as deemed appropriate
by the Honorable Court" (id.).
Plaintiff also seeks an order
expunging or sealing "the two evictions and the bankruptcy of the
aggrieved Plaintiff's public records. . . ." (id.. p. 33).
The present proposed Complaint is substantially similar to
two complaints previously submitted by Plaintiff to this Court:
(1) Aliindi v. United States of America. SA CV 18-2301-SJO (JC),
filed December 28, 2018; and (2) Aliindi v. United States of
America. SA CA 19-1434-DOC (E), filed July 25, 2019.
On January
8, 2019, the Court in Aliindi v. United States of America. SA CV
18-2301-SJO (JC), denied Plaintiff's request for leave to proceed
in forma pauperis, finding the proposed complaint in that action
to be frivolous, unintelligible, delusional and "patently
3
Case 8:20-cv-00002-DOC-E Document 13 Filed 01/24/20 Page 5 of 6 Page ID #:84
insufficient to state any rational, much less plausible, claim
for relief."
On August 5, 2019, the Court in Aliindi v. United
States of America. SA CA 19-1434-DOC (E), denied Plaintiff's
request to proceed in forma pauperis, finding the proposed
complaint in that action to be similarly infirm.
Plaintiff appealed the Court's order in Aliindi v. United
States of America. SA CA 19-1434-DOC (E).
On September 16, 2019,
the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied
Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal on the
ground that the appeal was frivolous.
On December 31, 2019, the
Ninth Circuit denied Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration.1
The Ninth Circuit's mandate issued on January 8, 2020.
The
proposed Complaint contains allegations that the Ninth Circuit's
decision was "based on a serious Court error while [Plaintiff]
was suffering to death. ..." (Proposed Complaint, p. 5) .
Plaintiff alleges that he read the Ninth Circuit's order while
Plaintiff was in a hospital emergency room, assertedly due to
severe chest and heart pain purportedly caused by the Defendants'
alleged wrongdoing (id.. p. 6) .
1
Plaintiff signed the proposed Complaint in the present
action on January 2, 2020.
4
Case 8:20-cv-00002-DOC-E Document 13 Filed 01/24/20 Page 6 of 6 PagelD#:85
The present proposed Complaint is infirm for the reasons
stated in the Court's orders denying Plaintiff's requests to
proceed in forma pauperis in Aliindi v. United States of America.
SA CV 18-2301-SJO (JC), and Aliindi v. United States of America.
SA CA 19-1434-DOC (E).
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915; Denton v.
Hernandez. 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992); Neitzke v. Williams. 490 U.S.
319, 327-38 (1989).
Under the circumstances, leave to amend
would be futile.
Plaintiff's "Motion for Leave to File Under Seal," "Motion
Requesting Appointment of Counsel" and "Written Application for'
Emergency Relief Under Local Rule 77-1" are denied.
5
APPENDIX E
Case 8:18-cv-02301-SJO-JC Documents Filed 01/08/19 Page lot 3 PagelD#:45
1
2
3
JS-6
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
DR. AHMAD J. ALJINDI,
Plaintiff,
12
13
14
15
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
et al.,
16
Defendants.
17
18
19
Case No. SACV 18-2301 SJO(JC)
ORDER (1) DENYING MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO FILE UNDER SEAL
(DOCKET NO. 2) AND UNSEALING
CASE- (2) DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
(DOCKETNO. 3); (3)DENYING
REQUEST TO PROCEED IN FORMA
PAUPERIS (DOCKET NO. 6) AND
DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT
PREJUDICE-AND (4) DENYING
APPLICATI6N FOR ELECTRONIC
FILING (DOCKET NO. 5)
On December 28, 2018, plaintiff Dr. Ahmad J. Aljindi, who is at liberty and
20
is proceeding pro se, filed a document entitled “Complaint for Employment
21
Discrimination” (“Complaint”) naming as defendants the United States of
22
America, and multiple federal officials in their official capacities. Plaintiff
23
concurrently filed a Motion for Leave to File under Seal (“Motion to Seal”), a
24
Motion for Appointment of Counsel (“Motion for Counsel”), a Request to Proceed
25
in Forma Pauperis (“IFP Request”), and an Application for Permission for
26
Electronic Filing (“Application for Electronic Filing”). The case is currently under
27
seal.
28
III
Case 8:18-cv-02301-SJO-JC Document 8 Filed 01/08/19 Page 2 of 3 Page ID #:46
1
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
2
1.
The Motion to Seal is DENIED, and the case is ORDERED unsealed.
3
Plaintiff has neither identified a statute, rule, regulation, or prior court order which
4
expressly provides for filing the instant action under seal, nor submitted a
5
declaration which establishes good cause or demonstrates any other compelling
6
reason why the strong presumption of public access in civil cases should be
7
overcome in the instant case. See Local Rule 79-5.2.1(a).
8
2.
The Motion for Counsel is DENIED. There is no constitutional right
9 to appointed counsel in a civil case. See Storseth v, Spellman. 654 F.2d 1349,
10
1353 (9th Cir. 1981). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the Court has discretionary
11
power to request an attorney to represent a party who is unable to afford counsel.
12
However, if plaintiff is seeking an order for an attorney to represent plaintiff
13
without compensation, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) does not authorize federal courts to
14
make coercive appointments of counsel. See Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court for
15
Southern Dist. of Iowa. 490 U.S. 296, 310 (1989); United States v. 30.64 Acres of
16
Land. 795 F.2d 796, 801 (9th Cir. 1986). If plaintiff is seeking funds from the
17
Court to pay counsel, “[t]he Supreme Court has declared that ‘the expenditure of
18
public funds [on behalf of an indigent litigant] is proper only when authorized by
19
Congress...Tedder v. Odel. 890 F.2d 210, 211 (9th Cir. 1989), citing United
20
States v. MacCollom. 426 U.S. 317, 321 (1976). Congress has not provided funds
21
to pay counsel secured under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). See 30.64 Acres of Land. 795
22
F.2d at 801. Hence, the Court treats plaintiffs Motion for Counsel as a request for
23
the Court to request an attorney to represent plaintiff without compensation. After
24
an evaluation of both “‘the likelihood of success on the merits [and] the ability of
25
the [plaintiff] to articulate [his] claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal
26
issues involved.’” see Wilbom v. Escalderon. 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986),
27
the Court finds that the exceptional circumstances which are necessary to grant the
28
Motion for Counsel do not appear to exist at this time.
2
Case 8:18-cv-02301-SJO-JC Document 8 Filed 01/08/19 Page 3 of 3 Page ID #:47
1
3.
The IFP Request is DENIED and this action is dismissed without
2 prejudice. The Complaint contains little more than confusing, and at times
3 unintelligible, delusional, and/or fantastic, stream-of-consciousness rambling
4 which is patently insufficient to state any rational, much less plausible, claim for
5 relief. See generally Neitzke v. Williams. 490 U.S. 319, 325, 328 (1989) (In
6 Forma Pauperis complaint frivolous if “so defective [] should never have been
7 brought”), superseded by statute on other grounds as noted in Lopez v. Smith. 203
8 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc); Denton v. Hernandez. 504 U.S. 25,
9 32-33 (1992) (court may dismiss complaint as frivolous where allegations are
10 “fanciful,” “fantastic,” “delusional,” “irrational or [] wholly incredible”),
11 superseded in part by statute on other grounds as noted in Walp v. Scott. 115 F.3d
12 308, 309 (5th Cir. 1997); In re Thomas. 508 F.3d 1225, 1226-27 (9th Cir. 2007)
13
(court may dismiss in forma pauperis action as frivolous when complaint recites
14 “bare legal conclusions with no suggestion of supporting facts or postulates]
15
events and circumstances of a wholly fanciful kind”) (citations and internal
16 quotation marks omitted), cert, denied. 552 U.S. 1261 (2008); Jackson v. State of
17 Arizona. 885 F.2d 639, 641 (9th Cir. 1989) (finding “totally incomprehensible”
18 claim frivolous), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Lopez. 203
19 F.3d at 1130; see, e.g.. Fallon v. United States Government. 2007 WL 80795, * 1
20
(N.D. Cal. 2007) (denying IFP request and dismissing action as frivolous where
21
complaints were “unintelligible and appealed] to be grounded on fantastic or
22
delusional scenarios”); cf McHenry v. Renne. 84 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 1996)
23
(complaint subject to dismissal if cannot sufficiently determine “who is being sued,
24
for what relief, and on what theory”).
25
4.
In light of the foregoing, the Application for Electronic Filing is moot,
26
and is therefore DENIED.
27
DATED: January 8, 2019
28
si
HONORABLE S. JAMES OTERO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.