Tran v. Civil Rights Act 1964 Department

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA TAM TRAN, CASE NO. 3:23-cv-05279-BHS Plaintiff, ORDER 9 v. CIVIL RIGHTS ACT 1964 DEPARTMENT, Defendant.

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Magistrate Judge David W. Christel’s Report and Recommendation (R&R), Dkt. 3, recommending that the Court deny pro se Plaintiff Tam Tran’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the case with prejudice and without leave to amend as frivolous and without merit.

This case is one of more than 20 substantially similar cases Tran has filed in this District this year. It, like the others, contains no factual allegations and no legal theory of liability. Instead, Tran’s statement of claim in this case asserts in its entirety: The Martin Luther King Jr. Signature Civil Rights Act 1964 Federal Criminal Law, never ending because no own D.O.J. No own Federal Court “Wrong on the law.” The law over only, patrol, sheriff, local police, the law 1 under John P. Hagensen local Judge, local court, state Judge state court, they fraud our American People violate 2nd Amendment.

Dkt. 1-2 at 5. Tran seeks $6 trillion in damages. Id. The R&R thoroughly catalogues the deficiencies in this case, which are also present in Tran’s other cases. Dkt. 3. It recommends dismissal with prejudice and without leave to amend, and the denial of in forma pauperis status in the event of any appeal.

Tran has not objected to the R&R and it is ADOPTED.

Tran’s application to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED, and he shall not have that status in the event of an appeal. The matter is DISMISSED with prejudice and without leave to amend. *** Tran’s practice of filing repetitive, facially frivolous complaints, seeking to proceed in forma pauperis, and refusing to amend his complaint, is abusive and vexatious. The Court has previously warned Tran that if he continues to do so, he will be subject to a bar order, precluding him from filing additional cases in this District without prior court approval. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); see also, e.g., McGlown v. United States Dep’t of Com., No. 23-cv-0049 TL, 2023 WL 1778934, at *3 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 6, 2023). It has now entered a notice of intent to enter such an order, and ordered Tran to show cause why it should not be entered. See Dkt. 4.

The Clerk shall enter a JUDGMENT and close the case.

IT IS SO ORDERED. // 1 Dated this 28th day of April, 2023.

A BENJAMIN H. SETTLE United States District Judge