Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Nagel v. Warren

United States District Court, D. Hawaii

March 14, 2019

MARCUS NAGEL, FLA. I.D. #571900508, Plaintiff,
v.
DAVID WARREN, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER DENYING IN FORMA PAUPERIS APPLICATION AND DISMISSING ACTION

          Leslie E. Kobayashi United States District Judge

         Before 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.[1] Nagel names 98 Defendants, none of whom are alleged to be residents of Hawaii.[2]

         Nagel 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.[3] See Compl., ECF No. 1, PageID #6-16.

         Nagel 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.

         For the 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 1915A(a).

         I. STATUTORY SCREENING

         The 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).

         A 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).

         The 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.

         Pro se 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).

         II. DISCUSSION

         Nagel's 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 570.

         Nagel filed four other actions in the District of Hawaii on or within days of the date that he commenced this suit.[4] 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, [5] this Court is convinced that granting leave to amend is futile and this dismissal is with prejudice.

         III. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.