United States District Court, D. Hawaii
MARCUS NAGEL, FLA. I.D. #571900508, Plaintiff,
DAVID WARREN, et al., Defendants.
ORDER DENYING IN FORMA PAUPERIS APPLICATION AND
E. Kobayashi United States District 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 98
Defendants, none of whom are alleged to be residents of
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 #6; see 28
U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. Nagel alleges fifty-six
causes of action apparently arising from alleged fraud
relating to the Nagel Family Trust. See Compl., ECF No.
1, PageID #6-16.
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 else
suggests a connection between Nagel's claims and Hawaii.
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 complain.
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).
pleading is essentially thirty-one pages of incoherent,
confusing, and completely conclusory statements. It is
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. The Court is unable to make
sense of Nagel's allegations or discern any basis for
finding that venue exists in the District of Hawaii. Because
Nagel's Complaint is legally frivolous, fails to state a
claim on which relief can be granted, is implausible on its
face, it is DISMISSED. See Twombley, 550 U.S. at
filed four other actions in the District of Hawaii on or
within days of the date that he commenced this
suit. These cases allege virtually identical
causes of action against most of the same defendants. A brief
review of the pleadings in these actions reveals that they
are equally incoherent, fantastical, and conclusory, and that
they have no apparent connection to Hawaii. In light of the
decision herein, Nagel's other actions filed in this
district, and a review of Nagel's actions that other
federal district courts have dismissed as frivolous or for
failure to state a claim,  this Court is convinced that granting
leave to amend is futile and this dismissal is with