United States District Court, D. Hawaii
MARCUS NAGEL, FLA. I.D. #571900508, Plaintiff,
HILTON, et al., Defendants.
ORDER DENYING IN FORMA PAUPERIS APPLICATION AND
Derrick K. Watson 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 117
Defendants, many of whom are unidentified, and none of whom
are alleged to be residents of Hawaii.
alleges forty-four causes of action and seeks $15 million in
compensatory and punitive damages and unidentified
declaratory and injunctive relief. See Compl., ECF No.
1, PageID #12-14. Neither federal nor Hawaii public criminal
databases show that Nagel was arrested or convicted in
Hawaii, and nothing within the record suggests any 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
legally and factually frivolous and for failure to state a
colorable claim for relief, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(a).
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 pled,
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-one page pleading is replete with incoherent and
completely conclusory statements. 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 most of
the same defendants. The complaints in these cases are equally
incoherent, fantastical, and conclusory, with no apparent
connection to Hawaii. The Court has also reviewed Nagel's
actions dismissed as frivolous or for failure to state a
claim in other federal district courts. Based on the
complaint herein, and Nagel's other filings in this and
other federal district courts, this Court is convinced that
granting Nagel leave to amend is futile, and this dismissal
is with prejudice.
action is DISMISSED with prejudice, and Nagel's
Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis is DENIED. Unless
overturned on appeal, this dismissal may count as a strike
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The Clerk of Court
shall close the file and terminate this case. The Court will