United States District Court, D. Hawaii
MARCUS NAGEL, FLA. I.D. #571900508, Plaintiff,
DAN DIAZ, et al., Defendants.
ORDER DENYING IN FORMA PAUPERIS APPLICATION AND
GILLMOR 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 a pretrial detainee incarcerated at the
Joseph V. Conte Facility, located in Pompano Beach,
Florida. Nagel names 172 Defendants, 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, PagelD #9; see 28
U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. Nagel asserts fifty-one
causes of action and seeks $15 million in damages. Neither
federal nor Hawaii public criminal databases show that Nagel
was ever arrested or convicted in Hawaii and nothing else in
the record suggests that he or his claims are otherwise
connected to Hawaii.
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).
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., 60 9 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.
Filler, 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).
pleading consists of forty-nine pages and fifty-one causes of
action. Nagel's claims, however, are largely incoherent
and completely conclusory. He vaguely alleges prosecutorial
misconduct, misrepresented evidence regarding an unidentified
arrest, fraud, conspiracy, and a possible eviction from an
apartment in New York. He claims unidentified Defendants in
New York and Florida tried to murder him to fraudulently
collect survivor benefit funds. He refers indiscriminately to
his family members, attorneys, police officers, social
workers, and judges located in New York, Florida, California,
and outside of the United States, without any explanation
regarding their connection to his claims. In short,
Nagel's Complaint is incomprehensible and it is
impossible to find that venue exists in the District of
Hawaii. Nagel's Complaint is DISMISSED as legally
frivolous and implausible on its face, and for failure to
state any claim upon which relief can be granted.
Twombley, 550 U.S. at 570.
filed four other actions in the District of Hawaii on or
within days of the date that he commenced this
action. This Court has reviewed the pleadings in
these actions and finds that they are equally incoherent,
fantastical, and conclusory, with no apparent connection to.
Hawaii. In light of the decision herein, review of
Nagel's other recently filed actions in this court, and
review of Nagel's actions filed in other federal district
courts,  this Court is convinced that granting
Nagel leave to amend is futile and this dismissal is with
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 action. The Court