1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 ANTHONY BUSSIE, 64105-050, Case No. 20-cv-09396-CRB (PR)

5 Plaintiff, ORDER OF DISMISSAL 6 v.

7 STEVEN MNUCHIN, et al., (ECF No. 6) 8 Defendant(s).

9 I. 10 Plaintiff Anthony Bussie, a civilly committed patient at the Federal Medical Center in 11 Butner, North Carolina, and frequent litigant in the federal courts,1 has filed a pro se complaint 12 against Steve Mnuchin, former Secretary of the United States Treasury, and Chuck Retting, 13 United States Commissioner of Internal Revenue (head of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS)). 14 The complaint consists of a short series of disjointed and largely unintelligible allegations ranging 15 from bank mismanagement to terrorism and election fraud. More specifically, plaintiff alleges 16 that he “contracted in bad faith with the defendants Mnuchin and Rettig to have an unreachable 17 spending and banking” and urges that the department of justice is not doing enough to prosecute 18 and convict 9/11 terrorists and prevent election fraud. Compl. (ECF No. 5) at 3. 19 Plaintiff seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) under

. 20 II. 21 Section 1915(e)(2) provides that the court “shall dismiss” any case brought IFP “if the 22 court determines” that “the allegation of poverty is untrue,” or that the action or appeal “is 23 frivolous or malicious,” “fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted[,] or seeks 24 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” Section 1915(e)(2) is not 25 limited to prisoners. Calhoun v. Stahl,

(9th Cir. 2001). It applies to all litigants 26 proceeding IFP.

27 ] An action is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis in fact or law. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 2 |} US. 319, 325 (1989). An action lacks an arguable basis in law if it is premised on an indisputably 3 meritless legal theory. See id. at 327. It also lacks an arguable basis in law if it is 4 || incomprehensible or unintelligible. See Jackson v. Arizona,

(9th Cir. 1989). 5 || An action lacks an arguable basis in fact if the plaintiff's allegations are so “fanciful,” “fantastic” 6 || and “delusional” as to be “wholly incredible.” Denton v. Hernandez,

(1992). 7 An action that repeats pending or previously litigated claims may be considered malicious 8 and dismissed under § 1915. See Cato v. United States,

, 1105 n.2 (9th Cir. 1995); 9 Bailey v. Johnson,

(Sth Cir. 1988). 10 Plaintiff's instant IFP action against former secretary Mnuchin and commissioner Rettig 11 will be dismissed as both frivolous and malicious because plaintiff has brought the gist of the 12 || allegations and claims herein in prior federal court actions, see, e.g., Bussie v. Mnuchin, No. 20- 13 cv-00102-DCR (E.D. Ky. Aug. 20, 2020) (order of dismissal); Bussie v. Mnuchin, No. 19-hc- 14 || 02091-BO (E.D.N.C. Mar. 26, 2019) (order of dismissal), and, like the courts that reviewed those 3 15 actions, this court finds that plaintiffs action lacks an arguable basis in fact or law, see, e.g., 16 || Bussie v. Mnuchin, No. 20-cv-00102-DCR, slip op. at 2 (finding action “totally implausible, i 17 attenuated, unsubstantial, frivolous, devoid of merit, or no longer open to discussion”); Bussie v. Zz 18 || Mnuchin, No. 19-hc-02091-BO, slip op. at 3 (finding “no factual basis for his fanciful claims, 19 || aside from conclusory assertions”). 20 Il. 21 Based solely on plaintiff's affidavit of poverty, his application for leave to proceed IFP 22 || (ECF No. 6)is GRANTED. But for the reasons set forth above, plaintiff's IFP action is 23 DISMISSED as frivolous and malicious under

(e)(2). 24 The clerk is instructed to terminate the action and close the file. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 || Dated: February 22, 2021 27 a Kk — CHARLES R. BREYER 28 United States District Judge