1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 Case No. SA CV 20-2192 MWF (MRW) 13 MARTIN VENTRESS, ORDER DISMISSING ACTION 14 Plaintiff, WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND 15 v. 16 DIRECTOR DAVID KILGORE, CALIFORNIA DCSS, et al., 17 Defendants. 18

19 20 The Court dismisses this civil action as frivolous, for failure to state a 21 cause of action upon which relief may be granted, and for failure to comply 22 with court orders. 23 * * * 24 1. Plaintiff, a self-represented litigant, filed this civil action 25 seeking redress against child support or child welfare obligations that he 26 owes in California, Texas, and North Carolina. (Docket # 1.) 27 2. Plaintiff paid the filing fee when he initiated the action. 28 However, Magistrate Judge Wilner screened the original complaint 1 pursuant to

(e)(2). (Docket # 5.) That statute allows a 2 court to dismiss a case or claim at any time (even if the litigant paid the 3 filing fee in full) if an action does not plead claims with adequate 4 specificity, seeks monetary relief from immune parties, or otherwise does 5 not comply with the law. 6 3. Judge Wilner concluded that the original complaint was subject 7 to dismissal due to various defects. (Id.) In the screening order, the 8 magistrate judge observed that: (a) the rambling complaint was not a 9 “short and plain statement of the claim” as required by Federal Rule of 10 Civil Procedure 8; (b) Plaintiff sought relief against state agencies and 11 officials that were protected by sovereign immunity; (c) the complaint failed 12 to state facts sufficient to state a recognizable cause of action against any 13 specific defendant; (d) Plaintiff improperly relied on criminal statutes to 14 pursue civil relief; and (e) as to the Texas and North Carolina defendants, 15 the complaint failed to assert a non-conclusory basis for venue in this 16 California court. 17 4. Judge Wilner gave Plaintiff leave to amend the complaint. 18 (Docket # 5 at 3.) Plaintiff filed a document that he described as an 19 amended complaint. (Docket # 6.) However, it did not cure the obvious 20 defects with Plaintiff’s original pleading. (Docket # 7.) The second 21 screening order expressly informed Plaintiff that any amended complaint 22 must “be complete in and of itself without reference to the original 23 complaint or any other pleading, attachment, or document.” (Id. at 2.) 24 * * * 25 5. Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s “First Amended 26 Complaint.” (Docket # 8.) The 32-page document is comprised of a lengthy 27 complaint, a 10-page “affidavit of truth,” and various UCC filings and trust 28 1 documents. The amended complaint names or identifies no recognizable 2 defendant. It continues to assert unintelligible and rambling allegations 3 regarding federal law, Plaintiff’s former marriage, and conclusory 4 statements about fraud and emotional distress. 5 6. A complaint may be dismissed for failure to state a claim based 6 on the lack of a cognizable legal theory or the absence of facts alleged under 7 such a theory. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t,

(9th 8 Cir. 1990). A complaint must contain enough facts to establish a 9 “plausible” entitlement to relief that is more than merely speculative. 10 Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

(2009). A pleading will be rejected if it 11 offers labels, conclusions, or a formulaic recitation of the elements of a 12 cause of action.

13 7. Plaintiff’s action must be dismissed for failing to present any 14 coherent claim for relief. In neither his original complaint nor his amended 15 pleading does Plaintiff offer any facts or comprehensible information to 16 support the contention that he is entitled to any relief against any state 17 child protection agency. As a result, the complaints patently fail to state a 18 claim upon which relief could plausibly be granted. Iqbal,

. 19 And, despite the detailed screening orders from the magistrate judge,1 20 Plaintiff appears to continue to improperly assert claims that are barred by 21 sovereign immunity principles, are reliant on federal criminal statutes, and 22 have no connection to this judicial district. 23 * * * 24 8. A pro se litigant is ordinarily entitled to amend a defective 25 complaint in an effort to state a proper claim for relief. Lopez v. Smith, 203

(9th Cir. 2000). However, this rule does not apply when “the 27 1 The legal analysis in the screening orders at Docket # 5 and 7 are 28 incorporated into this dismissal determination. 1 basic facts are alleged and have been analyzed” from a litigant’s pleadings 2 and it is apparent that that Plaintiff “cannot cure the flaws” in his claims. 3 Lipton v. Pathogenesis Corp.,

(9th Cir. 2002). 4 9. Additionally, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) provides 5 that if a plaintiff fails “to comply with these rules or a court order, a 6 defendant may move to dismiss the action or any claim against it.” 7 Dismissal also may be ordered by the Court sua sponte. Link v. Wabash 8 R.R.,

(1962). Dismissal of a civil action under Rule 41 9 may be appropriate to advance the public’s interest in the expeditious 10 resolution of litigation, the court’s need to manage its docket, and to avoid 11 the risk of prejudice to defendants. Omstead v. Dell, Inc.,

, 12 1084 (9th Cir. 2010). Additionally, a court should consider the public policy 13 favoring disposition of cases on their merits and the availability of less 14 drastic alternatives in its evaluation. Carey v. King,

, 1440 15 (9th Cir. 1988). 16 10. The Court concludes that these factors warrant dismissal of the 17 action without further leave to amend. Plaintiff previously received 18 detailed screening orders explaining the obvious defects with his pleadings. 19 He failed to cure those flaws, and continued to assert his improper and 20 unintelligible claims. There is no reason to allow further amendment. 21 Lopez,

. Further, the public, the court, and any to-be-served 22 defendant are entitled to be free of such frivolous litigation. In three 23 attempts at pleading a claim, Plaintiff offered no non-speculative basis to 24 conclude that he has any cognizable legal claim against any state agency. 25 No remedy short of dismissal will be appropriate to advance the disposition 26 of the case. Omstead,

; Carey,

. 27 28 1 Therefore, the present action is hereby DISMISSED without leave to 2 || amend. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. A f Via C} 7 | □□ ea 6 | Dated: February 19, 2021 Nhe Key Y 4 A 7 ICHAEL W. FITAGERALD | UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 8 9 Presented by: 10 11 [ _ 12 4 HON. MICHAEL R. WILNER 13 | UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28