United States District Court, D. Massachusetts
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
B. SARIS, CHIEF, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE.
reasons stated below, the Court dismisses this action.
litigant Azael Dythian Perales, who provides a California
mailing address and states that he is homeless, has filed a
177-page document that was docketed as a single complaint. He
names over 250 defendants, most of whom he identifies as
being employees or departments of the State of California,
San Francisco County, Los Angeles County, and Orange County.
Perales claims that the defendants are guilty of espionage,
computer and bank fraud crimes, RICO crimes, and other
seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
litigant moves to proceed without prepayment of the filing
fee, the Court conducts a preliminary review of the complaint
and may dismiss if it is malicious, frivolous, fails to state
a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary
relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). “The term
‘frivolous' is used to denote not only a claim
wholly lacking in merit but also a suit that, for whatever
reason, clearly can't be maintained.” Okoro v.
Bohman, 164 F.3d 1059, 1063 (7th Cir. 1999).
Perales's complaint cannot be maintained and is therefore
frivolous because it does not meet the pleading requirements
of Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the
Court is without personal jurisdiction over the defendants,
and venue is improper.
8(a) requires a complaint to set forth a “short and
plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is
entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). At a
minimum, the complaint must “give the defendant fair
notice of what the plaintiff's claim is and the grounds
upon which it rests.” Calvi v. Knox County,
470 F.3d 422, 430 (1st Cir. 2006) (quoting Educadores
Puertorriqueños en Acción v.
Hernández, 367 F.3d 61, 66 (1st Cir. 2004)). Rule
8(a) requires a party to make his pleading
straightforward, so that judges and adverse parties need not
try to fish a gold coin from a bucket of mud. Federal judges
have better things to do, and the substantial subsidy of
litigation (court costs do not begin to cover the expense of
the judiciary) should be targeted on those litigants who take
the preliminary steps to assemble a comprehensible claim.
United States ex rel. Garst v. Lockheed-Martin Corp.
328 F.3d 374, 378 (7th Cir. 2003). Thus, at a minimum, the
complaint must “give the defendant fair notice of what
the plaintiff's claim is and the grounds upon which it
rests.” Calvi v. Knox County, 470
F.3d 422, 430 (1st Cir. 2006) (quoting Educadores
Puertorriqueños en Acción v.
Hernández, 367 F.3d 61, 66 (1st Cir. 2004)).
Here, Perales's complaint is lengthy and incomprehensible
rather than short and plain.
the Court is without personal jurisdiction over the
defendants. “[T]o hear a case, a court must have
personal jurisdiction over the parties, ‘that is, the
power to require the parties to obey its decrees.'”
Hannon v. Beard, 524 F.3d 275, 279 (1st Cir. 2008)
(quoting Daynard v. Ness, Motley, Lodaholt,
Richardson, & Poole, P.A., 290 F.3d 42, 50 (1st Cir.
2002)). The due process clause of the United States
Constitution “protects an individual's liberty
interest in not being subject to the binding judgments of a
forum with which he has established no meaningful contacts,
ties, or relations.” Cossaboon v. Maine Medical
Ctr., 600 F.3d 25, 32 (1st Cir. 2010) (quoting
Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 642-472-72
(1985)) (internal quotation marks omitted). Therefore,
“a court is precluded from asserting jurisdiction
unless ‘the defendant's conduct and connection with
the forum State are such that [it] should reasonably
anticipate being haled into court there.'”
Id. (quoting World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v.
Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 297 (1980)) (alteration in
original). Perales has not pled any facts from which the
Court can reasonably infer that the defendants, who are
indentified as California residents, have meaningful contacts
with Massachusetts that would permit the Court to exercise
personal jurisdiction over them.
the action cannot be maintained in this Court because venue
is not proper in the District of Massachusetts. See
28 U.S.C. § 1391.