United States District Court, D. Hawaii
MARCUS NAGEL, FLA. I.D. #571900508, Plaintiff,
PATRICIA JANVIER, et al., Defendants.
ORDER DENYING IN FORMA PAUPERIS APPLICATION AND
DERRICK K. WATSON JUDGE
the Court is pro se Plaintiff Marcus Nagel's prisoner
civil rights Complaint and application to proceed in forma
pauperis. Nagel is incarcerated at the Joseph V. Conte
Facility, located in Pompano Beach, Florida. Nagel names 189
Defendants, many of whom are unidentified, and none of whom
are alleged to be residents of Hawaii.
alleges diversity jurisdiction is proper in the District of
Hawaii because the “Parties are domiciled in different
states, ” and “the amount in controversy exceeds
$75, 000;” he also alleges federal question
jurisdiction. Compl., ECF No. 1, PageID #9; see 28
U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. Nagel sets forth fifty-two
causes of action apparently alleged against each
Defendant. See Compl., ECF No. 1, PageID
seeks $15 million in compensatory and punitive damages and
unidentified declaratory and injunctive relief. Neither
federal nor Hawaii public criminal databases show that Nagel
was ever arrested or convicted in Hawaii, and nothing in the
Complaint suggests a connection between his claims and
following reasons, Nagel's in forma pauperis application
is DENIED, and this action is DISMISSED with prejudice as
frivolous and for failure to state any colorable claim for
relief, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and
court is required to screen Nagel's claims pursuant to 28
U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(a). Claims that are
frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim for relief, or
seek damages from defendants who are immune from suit must be
dismissed. See Rhodes v. Robinson, 621 F.3d 1002,
1004 (9th Cir. 2010).
complaint must “contain sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted);
Simmons v. Navajo Cty., Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011,
1020-21 (9th Cir. 2010); Ewing v. City of Stockton,
588 F.3d 1218, 1235 (9th Cir. 2009).
court may dismiss a claim as frivolous when it is based on an
indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual
contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke v.
Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325, 327 (1989); Franklin v.
Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th Cir. 1984). A claim
is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis in law
or in fact. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 325. A complaint
lacks an arguable basis in fact when “the facts alleged
are clearly baseless, a category encompassing allegations
that are fanciful, fantastic, and delusional.”
Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992). The
critical inquiry is whether a claim, however inartfully
pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See
Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1989),
superseded by statute as stated in Lopez v.
Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 2000)
(“[A] judge may dismiss [in forma pauperis] claims
which are based on indisputably meritless legal theories or
whose factual contentions are clearly baseless.”);
Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227.
litigants' pleadings must be liberally construed, and all
doubts should be resolved in their favor. Hebbe v.
Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010) (citations
omitted). The court must grant leave to amend if it appears
the plaintiff can correct the defects in the complaint.
Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1130. If a claim or complaint
cannot be saved by amendment, dismissal with prejudice is
appropriate. Sylvia Landfield Tr. v. City of L.A.,
729 F.3d 1189, 1196 (9th Cir. 2013).
forty-nine page pleading consists of primarily incoherent and
conclusory statements. The Court has struggled to comprehend
Nagel's claims but finds that it is effectively
impossible to understand what Nagel alleges Defendants did to
violate his federal rights or why he chose to bring this
action in the District of Hawaii. That is, there appears to
be no legal, comprehensible allegations in the Complaint, or
any explanation why venue for this action exists in the
District of Hawaii. Nagel's Complaint clearly satisfies
Neitzke's and Denton's
frivolousness standard and is DISMISSED as legally frivolous
and implausible on its face, and for its failure to state any
claim upon which relief can be granted. See Bell Atlantic
Corp. v. Twombley, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).
filed four other actions in the District of Hawaii on or
within days of the date that he commenced this action, all
alleging virtually identical causes of action against many of
the same defendants. The complaints in each of these cases are
equally incoherent, fantastical, and conclusory, with no
apparent connection to Hawaii. In light of this Court's
careful review of this case, Nagel's other recently filed
actions in this court, and Nagel's actions filed in other
federal district courts,  the Court is convinced that granting
Nagel leave to amend is futile, and this dismissal is with