1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROD ANTHONY HUFF, Case No. EDCV 21-0901 AB (RAO)

12 Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE 13 v. SUMMARY DISMISSAL 14 PEOPLE OF THE STATE, 15 Defendant. 16 17 On May 19, 2021, Plaintiff Rod Anthony Huff, who is proceeding pro se and 18 who has not paid the filing fee nor filed a proper request to proceed in forma 19 pauperis, filed a Complaint, naming “People of the State” as the sole defendant and 20 seeking, it appears, monetary damages against “any partie(s)” using the “registered 21 trademark” of his name, “Rod Anthony Huff,” without authorization. Complaint at 22 1, 2. For the following reasons, the Complaint is dismissed with prejudice. 23 Plaintiff alleges that he has “reserved all common-law rights, as a secured 24 party” as to his trademarked name and “has agreed, under the common-law, not to 25 be bound by any contract, or commercial agreement, that [he] did not enter into 26 knowingly, voluntar[il]y, and intentionally[.]” Id. at 2. He alleges that he has 27 explicitly reserved all rights under the Uniform Commercial Code. Id. Plaintiff 28 further states that he is a “secured party/creditor and a living breathing man and the 1 |) holder-in-due-course over the STRAWMAN TRUST/ENG LEGIS/BC/ETC.” Id. 2 || at 3. 3 Even construing the Complaint liberally, the Court is unable to discern a 4 || cognizable claim. See, e.g., Bendeck v. United States Bank Nat’l Assoc.,

|| 2726692, at *5, 6 (D. Haw. June 23, 2017) (rejecting as frivolous “sovereign citizen 6 || and/or redemption” theories utilizing “strawman” names and citing cases). 7 || Furthermore, because the Court is persuaded that Plaintiff would be unable to allege 8 || any facts regarding the use of his “trademarked” name that would state a cognizable 9 || claim, amendment would be futile in this case. See Hartmann v. Cal. Dep’t of 10 || Corr. & Rehab.,

(9th Cir. 2013) (“A district court may deny 11 || leave to amend when amendment would be futile.”). 12 Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED THAT the Complaint is 13 | DISMISSED with prejudice. 14 { As 15 || DATED: June 29, 2021 ol ANDREBIROTTEJR. 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28