1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 STEVE GARRISON, Case No. 25-cv-06139-JSC

8 Plaintiff, ORDER OF DISMISSAL v. 9

10 BLACKSTONE INVESTMENT FIRM, et al., 11 Defendants.

12 INTRODUCTION 13 Plaintiff, an inmate in Santa Clara County Jail who is proceeding without representation by 14 an attorney, filed this civil complaint against the “Blackstone Investment Firm,” President Donald 15 Trump, United States District Judge James Donato,1 and other unidentified defendants. (ECF No. 16 1.) He is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in a separate order. For the reasons 17 explained below, the complaint is dismissed as frivolous. 18 BACKGROUND 19 Plaintiff makes a wide variety of implausible and far-fetched allegations and claims. He 20 claims “the fact that Donald Trump has ties to Blackstone Investment Firm C.E.O.” is “evidence 21 to show that likely the federal judge[]s” were “paid off;” Judge Donato should “be held not just 22 [in] contempt of court but for the murder of 5 people on the Capitol;” Judge Donato “violated the 23 attorney/client privilege clause due in part to ‘no summons;’” Blackstone Investment Group was 24 “in direct conspiracy with Donald Trump, Judge Donato” to violate the Saudi Royal Family’s right 25 to due process; Defendants, along with “every judge in all of” his federal cases,2 were “in a 26 27 1 conspiracy to the murders of the 5 people murdered on the U.S.A. Capitol;” and “the Michael 2 Tyree murder falls on Judge Donato and all in Plaintiff’s Complaint including Gov. Newsom.” 3 (Id. at 1-3, 5). He attaches a minute order from his criminal proceedings in Santa Clara Superior 4 listing the presiding judge and Deputy District Attorney who appeared for the state, and his 5 handwritten notes on the order appear to contend the order is “evidence” that “shows” the two of 6 them are involved in a “conspiracy for human traffic[k]ing” and Governor Newsom is “guilty of 7 fraud.” (Id. at 8.) 8 STANDARD OF REVIEW 9 Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek 10 redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.

1915A(a). The Court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of 12 the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief 13 may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.”

14 § 1915A(b). Pleadings filed by unrepresented parties must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. 15 Pacifica Police Dep't,

(9th Cir. 1990). 16 Section 1915(e)(2) provides that the court “shall” dismiss any case brought in forma 17 pauperis “if the court determines” the action is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon 18 which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 19 relief. Section 1915(e)(2) is not limited to prisoners or to suits against governmental defendants. 20 Calhoun v. Stahl,

(9th Cir. 2001). 21 LEGAL CLAIMS 22 Plaintiff’s complaint must be dismissed as frivolous. A claim is frivolous if it is premised 23 on an indisputably meritless legal theory or is clearly lacking any factual basis. Neitzke v.

U.S. 319, 327 (1989). Examples are claims describing fantastic or delusional 25 scenarios “with which federal district judges are all too familiar.”

. 26 Sections 1915A and 1915(e)(2) accord judges the unusual power to pierce the veil of the 27 complaint’s factual allegations and dismiss as frivolous those claims whose factual contentions are 1 complaint’s factual allegations means that a court is not bound, as it usually is when making a 2 determination based solely on the pleadings, to accept without question the truth of the plaintiff’s 3 allegations.

But, this initial assessment of the plaintiff’s factual allegations must be weighted 4 in favor of the plaintiff.

A frivolousness determination cannot serve as a factfinding process 5 for the resolution of disputed facts.

A finding of factual frivolousness is appropriate when the 6 facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible, whether there are judicially 7 noticeable facts available to contradict them.

. The complaint may not be dismissed 8 simply because the court finds the plaintiff's allegations unlikely or improbable.

. 9 Plaintiff’s allegations that President Trump, Blackstone Investment Group, and several 10 federal judges conspired to murder people at the United States Capitol and to violate the Saudi 11 Royal Family’s right to due process are wholly incredible and delusional. Consequently, under 12 Sections 1915A and 1915(e)(2) the Court pierces the veil of Plaintiff’s factual allegations and 13 finds these claims frivolous. Additionally, Plaintiff’s claims that the state court minute order 14 shows a conspiracy between the trial judge and prosecutor to engage in human trafficking is 15 frivolous as a matter of law because the order simply identifies the judge and prosecutor who 16 handled his case. (See ECF No. 1 at 8.) Lastly, Plaintiff’s claim that Judge Donato violated his 17 attorney-client privilege by not issuing a summons is also frivolous because Judge Donato is 18 immune from suit for his rulings in Plaintiff’s cases. See Moore v. Brewster,

, 1243 19 (9th Cir. 1996) (holding federal judges are immune from civil liability for acts performed in their 20 judicial capacity). 21 CONCLUSION 22 For the foregoing reasons, the case is DISMISSED without leave to amend as frivolous. 23 The clerk shall enter judgment and close the file. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 Dated: October 28, 2025 26 JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY 27 United States District Judge