1

2

3

4

5

6

7 THE DISTRICT COURT OF GUAM

8 MANETIRONY CLERVRAIN, et al., CIVIL CASE NO. 22-00007 9 Plaintiffs, 10 vs. ORDER 11 S. THOMAS ANDERSON, et al., 12 Defendants. 13

14 Before the court are Plaintiff Manetirony Clervrain’s pleadings. ECF Nos. 1-12. For the 15 foregoing reasons, the court DISMISSES this action WITH PREJUDICE. 16 I. Discussion 17 On April 4, 2022, Plaintiff filed his pro se Complaint. ECF No. 1. Thereafter, Plaintiff 18 filed eleven motions, ECF Nos. 2-12, and an entry of appearance on behalf of another purported 19 plaintiff, ECF No. 13. The court, having reviewed these filings, finds that they are 20 incomprehensible and therefore fail to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. By 21 way of example, the first sentence of Plaintiff’s Complaint reads as follows: 22 “Thus, it is true that the defendants extensive conspiracy involved the violationfo [sic] the 23 Banking industry, or additional claims for [“’Class of One”] or Exclusion can be proving within this [“Motion for Enforcing Power or Development, or Development Guidance 24 Against Facilly [sic] Act by Invoking the Ant(s) Nationality Act”] (“TANA”), or they are 1 additional claims for the defenants [sic] jusitfy [sic] controlling theory. Indeed the motion is pending to file to the various courts against the giant involved exclusion to due process, 2 or for them to justify why” [sic] the plaintiff can not open [“Credit cards”], or Bank Account after being convicted…..additionally, to prove National origin Discrimination is 3 another issues to be proving by circumstantial of the evidence within the same meaning for controveries [sic] claim.” 4 Compl. at 4, ECF No. 1.

5 The court finds that Plaintiff’s Complaint is a meandering labyrinth of confused phrases. 6 See ECF No. 1. Such incomprehensible rambling not only fails to state a claim upon which relief 7 can be granted pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), it fails to meet even the “short and plain statement” 8 requirements of Rule 8. Moreover, such filings are not exclusive to the District Court of Guam. 9 “A review of PACER confirms Plaintiff is no stranger to the federal courts, having filed over 300 10 cases and appeals in federal courts nationwide. Other courts have noted his significant and 11 abusive litigation history.” Clervrain v. Keller,

, at *1 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 26, 12 2022) (citing numerous instances of Plaintiff’s frivolous litigation). Indeed, other courts have 13 “characterized his filings as ‘unbridled gibberish,’ ‘sprawling … lengthy and largely 14 incomprehensible,’ and ‘unintelligible’ and ‘without any rhyme or reason.’” Clervrain v. Shafer, 15

, at *1 (S.D. Ga. Jan. 6, 2022). This court shares this opinion with its sister 16 courts. For these reasons, the court DISMISSES this action. 17 The Federal courts wield inherent authority “to protect the efficient and orderly 18 administration of justice and … to command respect for the court’s orders, judgments, 19 procedures, and authority.” In re Stone,

(5th Cir. 1993). Pro se litigants have 20 “no license to harass others, clog the judicial machinery with meritless litigation, and abuse 21 already overloaded court dockets.” Farguson v. MBank Houston, N.A.,

(5th 22 Cir. 1986). Plaintiff’s filing history, the incomprehensible nature of the claims asserted, and the 23 multitude of filings in this and other cases across the nation, concern the court. Given this 24 behavior, the court believes that granting leave to amend would be futile. Thus, the court Page 3 of 3 1 || DISMISSES this action WITH PREJUDICE. 2 Il. Conclusion 3 For the aforementioned reasons, the court DISMISSES this action WITH PREJUDICE. 4 || The court CAUTIONS Plaintiff that any further incomprehensible filings in this court will be 5 || stricken without further notice and may result in the imposition of sanctions. 6 SO ORDERED. 7 /s/ Frances M. Tydingco-Gatewood na. Chief Judge 8 : ys / Dated: Jul 01, 2022 9

10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24