United States District Court, D. Massachusetts
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Sorokin United States District Judge
reasons stated below, this action is DISMISSED
without prejudice. I. BACKGROUND Jose Lopez, an
inmate in custody at the Wallens Ridge State Prison in
Virginia, filed what he describes as a criminal complaint.
Doc. No. 1. He seeks “one million six hundred thousand
[dollars] in the mean of legal currency of the United States
of America” from the Governor and Attorney General for
the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Id. at p. 20,
¶ 6. Accompanying the complaint is Lopez'
“Affidavit of Notice of Default.” Doc. No. 1-1.
the complaint and affidavit have been notarized and the
lengthy documents contain rambling references to various laws
and, in particular, the laws governing commercial
transactions under the Uniform Commercial Code. Doc. Nos. 1,
1-1. Lopez describes himself “of the Tribe/family of
Rivera, agent, del gratia, sui juris, Doc. No. 1, p. 1., and
as “a Secured Party Creditor Sovereign
(S.P.C.S.).” Id. at p. 20, ¶ 1. He
contends that he is “the sole individual being damaged
in (sic) the result of this commercial trade treason crime,
” Doc. No. 1, p. 2, and that through his filing a
“True Bill Commerce Affidavit, ” Id. at
p. 1, the court and the United States Attorney become the
competent authorities to prosecute and adjudicate the alleged
crimes. Doc. No. 1, p. 2. II. SCREENING THE
COMPLAINT Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(A), the Court is
required to conduct a prompt threshold review of prisoner
complaints in civil actions that seek redress from a
governmental entity or officers or employees of a
governmental entity, and to summarily dismiss any claims that
are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim on which
relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a
defendant who is immune from such relief.
action or claim is frivolous if “it lacks an arguable
basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v.
Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). An action fails to
state a claim on which relief may be granted if it does not
plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). Conversely, a
complaint is plausible on its face “when the plaintiff
pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
a district court has inherent authority to dismiss a
frivolous or malicious complaint sua sponte.
Akande v. John Doe 1, No. 12-10742-RWZ, 2012 WL
1658981, at *l (D. Mass. May 10, 2012) (citing Mallard v.
United States District Court, 490 U.S. 296,
307-08(1989); Fitzgerald v. First East Seventh Street
Tenants Corp., 221 F.3d 362, 363-64 (2d Cir. 2000)). In
conducting this review, the Court liberally construes the
plaintiff's pleadings because he is proceeding pro
se. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972).
with a liberal construction, there is no legal basis for
granting the relief plaintiff seeks. The Court notes that
plaintiff's description of himself as well as his
reference to commercial law are common to the legal arguments
asserted by sovereign citizen groups. The court views the
complaint as frivolous inasmuch as the arguments based on
commercial law are without merit and it states no cognizable
the Court often affords pro se plaintiffs an
opportunity to amend a complaint in recognition that
“basic fairness, as well as ‘sound prudential
reasons, ' counsel against most uses of the power to
dismiss cases sua sponte, ”
Gonzalez-Gonzalez v. United States, 257 F.3d 31, 37
(1st Cir. 2001), this is one of those cases in which it
“is crystal clear that the plaintiff cannot prevail and
that amending the complaint would be futile.”
Id. at 36-37.
this action is DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(A). The clerk shall enter a separate
order of dismissal.
 The sovereign citizens are a loosely
affiliated group who believe that the state and federal
governments lack constitutional legitimacy and therefore have
no authority to regulate their behavior. United States v.
Ulloa, No. 11-5368, 511 Fed.Appx. 105, 107, 2013 WL
535776, at n. 1. (2d Cir. 2013); see also Gauthier v.
Kirkpatrick, 2013 WL 6407716, at *17 n.18 (D. Vt. Dec.
9, 2013) (noting courts have described sovereign citizen
ideology as “completely without merit, ”