■ -Ma.
`
`ft-zFV
`!/
`
`ix
`
`fCL
`
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`
`FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
`
`4
`
`FILED
`
`JUL 18 2023
`MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
`U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
`
`FESTUS OKWUDILIOHAN,
`Plaintiff-Appellant,
`
`v.
`
`No. 23-35406
`D.C. No. 3:22-cv-00207-RRB
`District of Alaska,
`Anchorage
`
`ARMANDO B. FONTOURA, Essex County
`Sheriff; et aL,
`
`ORDER
`
`Defendants-Appellees.
`
`Before: SILVERMAN, R. NELSON, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.
`
`A review of the record demonstrates that this court lacks jurisdiction over
`
`this appeal because the June 12, 2023 notice of appeal was not filed within 60 days
`after the district court’s judgment entered on March 15,2023. See 28U.S.C.§
`
`2107(b); United States v. Sadler, 480 F.3d 932, 937 (9th Cir. 2007) (requirement of
`
`timely notice of appeal is jurisdictional). Consequently, this appeal is dismissed
`
`for lack of jurisdiction.
`
`All pending motions are denied as moot.
`
`DISMISSED.
`
`
`
`ft-zFV
`!/
`
`ix
`
`fCL
`
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`
`FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
`
`4
`
`FILED
`
`JUL 18 2023
`MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
`U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
`
`FESTUS OKWUDILIOHAN,
`Plaintiff-Appellant,
`
`v.
`
`No. 23-35406
`D.C. No. 3:22-cv-00207-RRB
`District of Alaska,
`Anchorage
`
`ARMANDO B. FONTOURA, Essex County
`Sheriff; et aL,
`
`ORDER
`
`Defendants-Appellees.
`
`Before: SILVERMAN, R. NELSON, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.
`
`A review of the record demonstrates that this court lacks jurisdiction over
`
`this appeal because the June 12, 2023 notice of appeal was not filed within 60 days
`after the district court’s judgment entered on March 15,2023. See 28U.S.C.§
`
`2107(b); United States v. Sadler, 480 F.3d 932, 937 (9th Cir. 2007) (requirement of
`
`timely notice of appeal is jurisdictional). Consequently, this appeal is dismissed
`
`for lack of jurisdiction.
`
`All pending motions are denied as moot.
`
`DISMISSED.
`
`
`
`0^
`
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT________________
`Form 27. Motion for " Pcfp&ftLS Ufe^e- fiLBj) UflTh^ li
`Q-tKHuutrtx. Qov/forms/forml 7instructions.pdf
`Instructions for this form:hitp*/hr\v\y. cu
`n S ip Li - ^
`? sr
`-~'XK~i-4-1 1 frh) ^3—.*^^5-?
`- p=X>'wV^A^t3'V'-2- ef-4^
`Case Name pMv^Vc7 ^
`r~~- • -- 'f)
`°
`Lower Court or Agency Case Number
`
`9th Cir. Case Number(s)
`
`'
`
`«=£££-------------------- 1
`boi-04lO5 * ^ — ci/ -^o/^c.-jrY\t:
`p c* ^ 2regg‘i: z-z-cu-k^^?-^^
`
`What is your name? f"gST~K? 0‘ O
`
`1 • What do you want the court to do?
`W rifU- mu OvftudS kmvaeZ Uf? net Yi-
`i ^
`pit^L> S&Jt'
`fcfrt\Cj&f-eswj'
`
`&£jrk> Pz&t^kA <U>C--Jx l^}^>
`-
`fU.
`eoK-C
`2. Why should the court do this? Be specific. Include all relevant facts and law
`that would persuade die court to grant your request (Attach additional pages as
`necessary. Your motion may not be longer than 20 pages.)
`<r-T>
`A/
`^nr4^
`HjJ"Wh Appeals
`/, p f
`* ? r ^ “.rff • Rit
`us'e^e^iji^K
`\>.
`fyffLe-Y Yk'fvp «L*tX
`0 j_, ^ v r{ . * (
`r A w ^ t /re- Jt ^
`,-u^ ^ jy^cK^ *5?
`p, 0 ny/1 "jt/i y^v if ^ >oK.^ ^
`ldo%> %,
`
`'
`
`5-e€^
`
`'
`
`l_( n Jlr (CL j
`i
`State 1/tjtl Zip Code
`
`Your mailing address!
`mo f=,
`j‘
`city p^tftcrLrfe
`Prisoner Inmate or A Number (if applicable)
`1*£, 2f/lcO^
`rW/A £■
`Date '
`Feedback or questions about this form? Email us atf/ntix'acaQ.uscoiirrs. eov
`
`Signature
`
`t
`
`Form 27
`
`New 12/01/2018
`
`
`
`|?^rYNervi<3C^^Swp*2e"nrie Cdbi&r C^wcLmSi
`OF PeHL.)<fgj
`Mf2 So, tHt? Vfurv>«w
`will. AJor e%i5r,;_frTrHl5 ^
`tf-u_ ^^lfoGr a+ji> _sec^j>A^^ ru m^
`f'^«* O- ^ IW
`- you CH*»o5£ De*=rtf FbJiua^t.
`Lj%&iztv oe. ^t^e- uS
`I^ero^rf £rr2f UfDhm^ Vt>u ++-AV&
`y^u r^j/
`H*V5 6 /vvKkt^TH-f To i/Vh'jQuii’H TfcH? Wo«.U> iW0 LtF^V^t, DAw^Rt/*
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`*
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
`
`*
`
`A& .
`
`<£TiU- firT
`
`* :
`
`L-J&i-izy y 77.
`3)0 uJl^T- 7
`Dzr/S
`u rr&Lyf
`AJcrr
`^Hn^ry0ii
`fr/ZJG-
`3>6t*JC)\
`
`FESTUS O. OHAN
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`ARMANDO FONTURA, PAULA
`DOW, CHARLES RETTIG,
`
`ABN AMRO, LEE BACA, JACKIE
`LACEY,
`
`U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
`U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH,
`U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY,
`U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, U.S.
`CONGRESS,
`
`NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY
`ORGANIZATION, STATES OF THE
`UNITED STATES, UNITED
`NATIONS, THE EUROPEAN UNION
`and THE UNITED KINGDOM,
`
`Defendants.
`
`Case No. 3:22-cv-00207-RRB
`
`Case No. 3:22-cv-00212-RRB
`
`Case No. 3:22-cv-00221-RRB
`
`Case No. 3:22-cv-00226-RRB
`
`ORDER OF DISMISSAL
`
`Before the Court are the four above-captioned civil actions brought by self-
`
`represented litigant Festus O. Ohan (“Plaintiff). Plaintiff filed applications to
`
`Case 3:22-cv-00207-RRB Document 19 Filed 03/14/23 Page 1 of 13
`
`
`
`(k.
`
`) io
`
`proceed without paying the filing fee in each case.1 Plaintiff subsequently has filed
`
`numerous “Additional Related Documents” and “Notices” in each case. The Court
`
`shall not consider additional arguments contained in the additional documents filed
`
`with the Court, as that is not proper procedure to amend a complaint.2
`Upon the Court’s review, the Court finds these cases to be interrelated and 1 UK/
`Utsk.
`appropriate to address within the same order. Plaintiffs’ filings are fundamentally
`-
`'T
`
`similar, repeat or reference allegations against defendants named in other actions,
`
`Ki
`
`and contain copies of duplicative documents. He has included some or all of the
`
`above-captioned case numbers on his coversheets and requested the Clerk file
`
`the documents in each case.3 Accordingly, these actions will be evaluated and
`
`addressed collectively. The Court now screens Plaintiff’s complaints in
`
`accordance with 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) and 1915A.
`
`1 Ohan v. Fontoura etal., Case No. 3:22-cv-00207-RRB, Docket 3; Ohan v. ABN AMRO
`et at., Case No. 3:22-cv-00212-RRB, Docket 3; Ohan v. U.S. Department of Justice etal.,
`Case No. 3:22-cv-00221-RRB, Docket 3; Ohan v. North Atlantic Treaty Organization et
`al., Case No. 3:22-cv-00226-RRB, Docket 3.
`2 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a); see also Local Civil Rule 15.1.
`3 See, e.g., Case 3:22-cv-00212-RRB, Docket 1, 5; Case 3:22-cv-00221-RRB, Dockets
`4-8.
`
`Case No. 3:22-cv-00207-RRB, Ohan v. Fontoura et al.
`Case No. 3:22-cv-00212-RRB, Ohan v. ABN AMRO et al.
`Case No. 3:22-cv-00221-RRB, Ohan v. U.S. Department of Justice etal.
`Case No. 3:22-cv-00226-RRB, Ohan v. North Atlantic Treaty Organization et al.
`Order of Dismissal
`Page 2 of 13
`Case 3:22-cv-00207-RRB Document 19 Filed 03/14/23 Page 2 of 13
`
`
`
`/ 7
`
`• •
`
`I. Procedural History
`
`As an initial matter, the Court takes judicial notice of Plaintiffs previous civil
`
`cases in federal court.4 Ohan v. Essex County Sheriffs Office5 was dismissed for
`
`seeking relief from defendants who are immune from suit. In Ohan v. United
`
`States,6 the Court found the Complaint failed to state a viable a claim and noted
`
`Plaintiffs filings were “often illegible or unintelligible or unrelated to th[e] case.
`”7
`
`The Court also could not establish jurisdiction.8 Nonetheless, the Court granted
`
`leave to file an Amended Complaint or Notice of Voluntary Dismissal.9 Plaintiff
`
`subsequently filed multiple documents, but the Court ultimately dismissed the
`
`action as none of the filings could “be construed to be either an amended
`
`complaint or a notice of voluntary dismissal!,]” and the Plaintiff failed to “make an
`
`4 Judicial notice is the “court’s acceptance, for purposes of convenience and without
`requiring a party’s proof, of a well-known and indisputable fact; the court’s power to accept
`such a fact.” Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019). Acourtcan take judicial notice of
`its own files and records. Fed. R. Evid. 201.
`5 Ohan v. Essex County Sheriff’s Office, 2010 WL 11693192 (D. N.J. 2010).
`6 Ohan v. United States, 2022 WL 1307248 (D. Alaska 2022).
`7 id.
`8 Id.
`9 Id.
`
`Case No. 3:22-cv-00207-RRB, Ohan v. Fontoura et al.
`Case No. 3:22-cv-00212-RRB, Ohan v. ABN AMRO et al.
`Case No. 3:22-cv-00221-RRB, Ohan v. U.S. Department of Justice et al.
`Case No. 3:22-cv-00226-RRB, Ohan v. North Atlantic Treaty Organization et al.
`Order of Dismissal
`Page 3 of 13
`Case 3:22-cv-00207-RRB Document 19 Filed 03/14/23 Page 3 of 13
`
`
`
`v?‘
`
`7«J‘
`
`effort to comply with the Court’s previous order regarding filing an amended
`
`complaint.
`
`»10
`
`II.
`
`Summary of Complaints
`
`Even construing the immediate filings liberally, Plaintiff fails to state a claim
`
`upon which relief may be granted.11 Although Plaintiffs narratives are difficult to
`
`follow, in the interest of justice, the Court attempts to summarize each Complaint
`
`below to the best of its ability.
`
`In his first Complaint, on September 9, 2022, Plaintiff named Armando
`
`Fontoura, Sheriff for Essex County, New Jersey; Paula Dow, a former county
`
`prosecutor from Newark (in Essex County), and Charles Rettig, the Internal
`
`Revenue Service (IRS) Commissioner as defendants.12 The filings total 352
`
`pages. Claims 1 and 2 in this Complaint bring allegations against the Essex
`
`County Sherriff and Prosecutor for events that occurred in New Jersey in 2005.13
`
`These claims are nearly identical to the claims dismissed by the United States
`
`10 Ohan v. Rettig, Case 3:22-cv-00011 -SLG, Docket 20. See also id. at Docket 26 (Order
`Re Post-Judgment Filings: No action will be taken by the court with respect to the post
`judgment filings. Any request for relief from judgment must be in the form of a motion and
`must comply with the applicable Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.).
`11 Plaintiff also seeks relief from Defendants who are immune from suit, repeats litigation
`previously dismissed, and raises allegations unlikely under the jurisdiction of the Court.
`12 Ohan v. Fontoura etal., Case No. 3:22-cv-00207-RRB.
`13 Case No. 3:22-cv-00207-RRB, Docket 1 at 3-4.
`
`V
`
`Case No. 3:22-cv-00207-RRB, Ohan v. Fontoura et at.
`Case No. 3:22-cv-00212-RRB, Ohan v. ABNAMROetal.
`Case No. 3:22-cv-00221-RRB, Ohan v. U.S. Department of Justice et al.
`Case No. 3:22-cv-00226-RRB, Ohan v. North Atlantic Treaty Organization et al.
`Order of Dismissal
`Page 4 of 13
`Case 3:22-cv-00207-RRB Document 19 Filed 03/14/23 Page 4 of 13
`
`
`
`u/^
`*7 hn^r^uljL ^ r^
`/
`District Court for the District of New Jersey in 2010.14 Claim 3 in this Complaint,
`
`4-
`
`i ^6'
`
`o
`
`brings allegations againstthe IRS
`
`a* Tuts-)
`Ck&r-
`dismissed by this Courts5 Plaintiffs Complaint and subsequent"filings describe
`
`childhood injuries, events occurring in other countries, visits from Queen Elizabeth,
`
`riots in Madrid, supersonic bluebird jets, faces of elephants, growth hormones, and
`
`ear implants.16
`
`Next, on October 4, 2022, Plaintiff named ABN AMRO, a mortgage financing
`
`group in Michigan; Lee Baca, the Los Angeles County Sheriff; and Jackie Lacey,
`
`the Los Angeles County District Attorney, as defendants.17 The filings total 212
`
`pages. Claim 1 of this second Complaint describes a psychiatric hospitalization in
`
`New Jersey and what seems to be subsequent foreclosure of Plaintiffs home in
`
`California. His narrative includes alleged involvement of ABM AMRO, the LA
`
`Sheriff, a law firm with 53 licensed attorneys, and Citi Bank.18 Claim 2, against
`
`Sheriff La Baca, alleges that the Sheriff auctioned his home in a “Sheriffs Sale” in
`
`2006. His narrative also describes his childhood abduction, permanent scarring
`
`14 Ohan v. Essex County Sheriff’s Office, 2010 WL 11693192 (D. N.J. 2010).
`15 Ohan v. United States, 2022 WL 1307248 (D. Alaska 2022).
`16 See, e.g., Ohan v. Fontoura et at., Case No. 3:22-cv-00207-RRB, Docket 1 at 3-5;
`Docket 9; Docket 12.
`17 Ohan v. ABN AMRO etal., Case No. 3:22-cv-00212-RRB.
`18 Id. at Docket 1 at 4.
`
`Case No. 3:22-cv-00207-RRB, Ohan v. Fontoura etal.
`Case No. 3:22-cv-00212-RRB, Ohan i/. ABN AMRO etal.
`Case No. 3:22-cv-00221-RRB, Ohan v. U.S. Department of Justice et al.
`Case No. 3:22-cv-00226-RRB, Ohan v. North Atlantic Treaty Organization et al.
`Order of Dismissal
`Page 5 of 13
`Case 3:22-cv-00207-RRB Document 19 Filed 03/14/23 Page 5 of 13
`
`
`
`from amputation of his left leg, his vehicles being towed in California, and how
`
`Americans and Britain stole his inheritance.19 In Claim 3, against the L.A. District
`
`Attorney, Plaintiff claims he was wrongfully incarcerated in the Los Angeles County
`
`jail and then forced to be homeless. He references his cases in Essex County,
`
`New Jersey. He claims Britain, Mainland Europe, and Nigeria “followed their
`
`steps." His narrative includes descriptions of drilling and mining to “destroy the
`
`galaxy," alleged cannibalism, and use of enemy body parts for procreation.20
`
`On October 14, 2022, Plaintiffs third Complaint names the U.S. Department
`
`of Justice, U.S. Department of Health, U.S. Department of Treasury, U.S.
`
`Department of State, and U.S. Congress as defendants.21 The filings total 349
`
`pages. In Claims 1-3 of the third Complaint, Plaintiff describes events occurring
`
`from 1958 to present, alleging the U.S. Government committed mail fraud, “offset
`
`his credentials” and used the Department of Justice for home invasion burglaries.
`
`He claims the U.S. government is responsible for his unemployment and
`
`homelessness, and forced him to take minimum wage jobs for survival yet taxed
`
`him. He believes that the U.S. government implanted an electronic electrode
`
`19 Docket 1 at 4.
`20 Docket 1 at 5.
`21 Ohan v. U.S. Department of Justice etal., Case No. 3:22-cv-00221-RRB.
`
`Case No. 3:22-cv-00207-RRB, Ohan v. Fontoura etal.
`Case No. 3:22-cv-00212-RRB, Ohan v. ABN AMRO et al.
`Case No. 3:22-cv-00221-RRB, Ohan v. U.S. Department of Justice et al.
`Case No. 3:22-cv-00226-RRB, Ohan v. North Atlantic Treaty Organization et al.
`Order of Dismissal
`Page 6 of 13
`Case 3:22-cv-00207-RRB Document 19 Filed 03/14/23 Page 6 of 13
`
`
`
`above his left ear in 1983 to steal his intellectual property.22 He claims to have
`
`operated on former vice-president Dick Cheney, and that he owns all the
`
`neuropsychiatric hospitals in West Africa.23 He describes a “universal conquest”
`
`stating "the United States of America is responsible . . . they invaded and annexed
`
`the world ... [and seek] to acquire and own the universe.
`
`”24
`
`Finally, on October 18, 2022, Plaintiff named the North Atlantic Treaty
`
`Organization (NATO), United Nations, European Union, and United Kingdom as
`
`defendants.25 The filings total 156 pages. Claim 1 of the fourth Complaint
`
`describes events allegedly occurring from 1958 to present and describes universal
`
`invaders, assassins, and what seems to be his interpretation of historic and
`
`religious events.26 Claims 2 and 3 are difficult to parse, but appear to again
`
`describe events allegedly occurring from 1958 to the present involving alleged
`
`wrongdoings and conspiracies committed by the Unites Nations and by “states in
`
`the United States, especially CA, NY, NJ, FL, and Texas.”27
`
`22 Id. at Docket 1 at 4.
`23 Id. at 3.
`24 Id. at 5.
`25 Ohan v. North Atlantic Treaty Organization etal., Case No. 3:22-cv-00226-RRB.
`26 Id. at Docket 1 at 3.
`27 Id. at Docket 1 at 3-4.
`
`Case No. 3:22-cv-00207-RRB, Ohan v. Fontoura et al.
`Case No. 3:22-cv-00212-RRB, Ohan y. ABN AMRO et al.
`Case No. 3:22-cv-00221-RRB, Ohan v. U.S. Department of Justice et al.
`Case No. 3:22-cv-00226-RRB, Ohan v. North Atlantic Treaty Organization et al.
`Order of Dismissal
`Page 7 of 13
`Case 3:22-cv-00207-RRB Document 19 Filed 03/14/23 Page 7 of 13
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs claims for relief in each action are fundamentally similar.28 He
`
`seeks damages in the “quadrillions.
`
`”29
`
`He also requests “return of all taken
`
`properties,” information about the whereabouts of his biological parents
`
`confessions from and punishments of Defendants, and various versions of
`
`declarations supporting what appears to be his account of history and religion.30
`
`III.
`
`Screening Requirement
`
`Federal law requires a court to conduct an initial screening of a civil
`
`complaint filed by a self-represented litigant seeking to proceed in a lawsuit in
`
`federal court without paying the filing fee.31 In this screening, a court shall dismiss
`
`the case at any time if the court determines that the action:
`
`(i)
`
`(ii)
`
`is frivolous or malicious;
`
`fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or
`
`(iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune
`
`from such relief.32
`
`To determine whether a complaint states a valid claim for relief, courts
`
`28 Plaintiff used the Court’s template Pro Se Complaint form in each above-captioned
`case, so his requests for relief are at page 6 of each respective Docket 1 (“Dockets 1").
`29 Dockets 1 at 6.
`30 Id
`31 See, e.g., Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126 n.7 (9th Cir. 2000).
`32 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
`
`Case No. 3:22-cv-00207-RRB, Ohan v. Fontoura et al.
`Case No. 3:22-cv-00212-RRB, Ohan v. ABN AMRO et al.
`Case No. 3:22-cv-00221-RRB, Ohan v. U.S. Department of Justice etal.
`Case No. 3:22-cv-00226-RRB, Ohan v. North Atlantic Treaty Organization et al.
`Order of Dismissal
`Page 8 of 13
`Case 3:22-cv-00207-RRB Document 19 Filed 03/14/23 Page 8 of 13
`
`
`
`consider whether the complaint contains sufficient factual matter that, if accepted
`
`as true, “state[s] a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.
`
`”33
`
`In conducting its
`
`review, a court must liberally construe a self-represented plaintiffs pleading and
`
`give the plaintiff the benefit of the doubt.34 However, the Court is not required to
`
`accept as true conclusory allegations, unreasonable inferences, or unwarranted
`
`deductions of fact.35 [The] term ‘frivolous,’ when applied to a complaint, embraces
`
`not only the inarguable legal conclusion, but also the fanciful factual allegation.
`
`”36
`
`IV. Plaintiff Fails to State any Viable Claims
`
`A complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted if it
`
`appears that the Plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of the claim that would
`
`entitle him to relief.37 A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the
`
`claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.”38 A complaint should set out
`
`each claim for relief separately. Each claim should identify: (1) the specific harm
`
`33 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550
`U.S. 544, 570 (2007)).
`34 See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Bretz v Kelman, 773 F.2d
`1026, 1027 n.1 (9th Cir. 1985) (en banc)).
`35 Western Mining Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d 618, 624 (9th Cir. 1981).
`36 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989).
`37 Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73, 104 S. Ct. 2229, 81 L. Ed. 2d 59
`(1984); Palmer v. Roosevelt Lake Log Owners Ass'n, Inc., 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir.
`1981).
`38 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2).
`
`Case No. 3:22-cv-00207-RRB, Ohan v. Fontoura et al.
`Case No. 3:22-cv-00212-RRB, Ohan v. ABN AMRO etal.
`Case No. 3:22-cv-00221-RRB, Ohan v. U.S. Department of Justice et al.
`Case No. 3:22-cv-00226-RRB, Ohan v. North Atlantic Treaty Organization et al.
`Order of Dismissal
`Page 9 of 13
`Case 3:22-cv-00207-RRB Document 19 Filed 03/14/23 Page 9 of 13
`
`
`
`2^
`
`that Plaintiff is alleging; (2) when that harm occurred; (3) where the harm was
`
`caused; and (4) who he is alleging caused that specific harm.
`
`In the instant filings, Plaintiff fails to do so. Instead, Plaintiff, in his “own
`
`version of the ‘spaghetti approach,’ has heaved the entire contents of a pot against
`
`the wall in hopes that something would stick.’’39 “As the Seventh Circuit observed
`
`in its now familiar maxim, ‘[j]udges are not like pigs, hunting for truffles buried in
`
`briefs.’”40 Nonetheless, in the interests of fundamental fairness, the Court
`
`attempted to flesh out Plaintiffs claims. Even taken as a whole and construed
`
`liberally, the Court cannot decipher a sufficient, plausible theory or even facts that 9
`
`would support a legal claim. Plaintiffs Complaints do not clearly set forth the
`
`factual allegations underlying his claims. Plaintiff fails to describe specific actions
`
`taken by any of the defendants named in his complaints that violated his
`
`constitutional rights. Many of the allegations are conclusory and not sufficiently
`
`detailed as to what each individual defendant did to violate his rights. Plaintiffs
`pi)irdtf£a
`filings include allegations that are fanciful, fantastic, or delusional, and not ^*4?.
`
`supported by material fact. Whether taken individually or as a collective, Plaintiffs
`
`allegations cannot state a viable civil legal claim; therefore, they do not have an
`
`arguable basis in law. Even setting aside the multitude of procedural and
`
`39 Indep. Towers of Washington v. Washington, 350 F.3d 925, 929 (9th Cir. 2003).
`40 Id. (quoting United States v. Dunkel, 927 F.2d 955, 956 (7th Cir. 1991)).
`
`Case No. 3:22-cv-00207-RRB, Ohan v. Fontoura et al.
`Case No. 3:22-cv-00212-RRB, Ohan v. ABN AMRO et al.
`Case No. 3:22-cv-00221-RRB, Ohan v. U.S. Department of Justice et al.
`Case No. 3:22-cv-00226-RRB, Ohan v. North Atlantic Treaty Organization et al.
`Order of Dismissal
`Page 10 of 13
`Case 3:22-cv-00207-RRB Document 19 Filed 03/14/23 Page 10 of 13
`
`
`
`jurisdictional issues, no facts or defendants could be added or substituted to allow
`
`any of the Complaints to move forward.
`
`V.
`
`Amendment is Futile
`
`“A district court may deny leave to amend when amendment would be
`
`futile.’’41 Futility exists when “the allegation of other facts consistent with the
`
`challenged pleading could not possibly cure the deficiency!.]”42 Here, no additional
`
`facts or defendants would remedy the lack of arguable basis in either fact or law in
`
`Plaintiff’s filings. Therefore, amendment would be futile. The Court will not grant
`
`leave to amend the Complaints.
`
`Further, a district court may dismiss an action for failure to comply with any
`
`order of the Court.43 Plaintiff continues to be either unwilling or unable to comply
`
`with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Civil Rules, or with the Court’s
`
`orders. Plaintiff has failed to amend a previous complaint in accordance with the
`
`Court’s guidance,44 and although the Court has notified Plaintiff that any requests
`
`for relief must be in the form or a motion and comply with applicable rules of
`
`41 Hartmann v. California Dep’t of Corn & Rehab., 707 F.3d 1114, 1130 (9th Cir. 2013).
`42 See SchreiberDistributing Co. v. Serv-Well Furniture Co., 806 F.2d 1393,1401 (9th Cir.
`1986).
`43 See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (a district court may
`dismiss an action for failure to comply with any order of the Court).
`44 See Ohan v. United States of America, Case No. 3;22-cv-011-SLG, Docket 20.
`
`Case No. 3:22-cv-00207-RRB, Ohan v. Fontoura et al.
`Case No. 3:22-cv-00212-RRB, Ohan v. ABN AMRO et al.
`Case No. 3;22-cv-00221-RRB, Ohan v. U.S. Department of Justice etal.
`Case No. 3:22-cv-00226-RRB, Ohan v. North Atlantic Treaty Organization et al.
`Order of Dismissal
`Page 11 of 13
`Case 3:22-cv-00207-RRB Document 19 Filed 03/14/23 Page 11 of 13
`
`
`
`procedure,45 Plaintiff continues to submit extensive and voluminous
`
`incomprehensible filings in his pending and closed cases. The Court notes Plaintiff
`
`also recently has filed several other civil actions with this court. While not subject
`
`to the same screening standard as the instant actions, upon the Court’s review,
`
`those filings also contain various procedural and substantive deficiencies which
`
`will be addressed in separate orders.
`
`While a court may act with leniency towards a self-represented litigant for
`
`procedural violations, Plaintiff is not excused from the rules that govern court
`
`proceedings.46 Further, Plaintiff continues to demonstrate an inability to follow
`
`simple guidance and a lack of respect for efficient docket management.
`
`Accordingly, the Court will not entertain any further non-procedurally compliant
`
`filings.
`
`For the reasons explained above, these actions are DISMISSED WITH
`
`PREJUDICE.
`
`45 See, e.g., id. at Docket 26.
`46 Motoyama v. Hawaii, Dept. ofTransp., 864 F. Supp. 2d 965, 976 (2012); see also King
`v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987), overruled on other grounds by Lacey v.
`Maricopa Cty., 693 F.3d 896 (9th Cir. 2012) (establishing self-represented litigants are
`bound by the same procedural rules as represented parties).
`
`Case No. 3:22-cv-00207-RRB, Ohan v. Fontoura etal.
`Case No. 3:22-cv-00212-RRB, Ohan v. ABN AMRO et al.
`Case No. 3:22-cv-00221-RRB, Ohan v. U.S. Department of Justice etal.
`Case No. 3:22-cv-00226-RRB, Ohan v. North Atlantic Treaty Organization etal.
`Order of Dismissal
`Page 12 of 13
`Case 3:22-cv-00207-RRB Document 19 Filed 03/14/23 Page 12 of 13
`
`
`
`2.7<a.
`
`.
`
`? t
`
`VI.
`
`Public Access
`
`Federal courts recognize a “general right to inspect and copy public records
`
`and documents, including judicial records and documents.”47 Although “access to
`
`judicial records is not absolute, ”48 there is a “strong presumption in favor of
`
`access.
`
`”49
`
`The Court finds no reason for these complaints to remain under seal.
`
`Therefore, the Court unseals these actions and makes them available for public
`
`access in the interest of justice.
`
`IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`These actions are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
`
`All pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT.
`
`The Court will not entertain any further non-procedurally compliant filings.
`
`The Clerk of Court shall unseal all of the sealed filings in the above-
`captioned cases.
`
`The Clerk of Court shall issue final judgments in the above-captioned cases.
`
`DATED this 14th day of March 2023, at Anchorage, Alaska.
`/s/Ralph R. Beistline
`/'RALPH R. BEISTLINE
`(.Senior United States District Judge
`^ you £>/D Utf/lVT- 7
`fwf7l£MCT&i) you TQ'DolTH*yJlwf/
`
`47 Nixon v. WarnerCommc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978).
`48 Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (2006).
`49 Foltz v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Insurance Company, 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir
`2003).
`
`Case No. 3:22-cv-00207-RRB, Ohan /. Fontoura et al.
`Case No. 3:22-cv-00212-RRB, Ohan v. ABN AMRO et al.
`Case No. 3:22-cv-00221-RRB, Ohan v. U.S. Department of Justice etal.
`Case No. 3:22-cv-00226-RRB, Ohan v. North Atlantic Treaty Organization et al.
`Order of Dismissal
`Page 13 of 13
`Case 3:22-cv-00207-RRB Document 19 Filed 03/14/23 Page 13 of 13
`
`
`
`;
`
`F&srt/s QKuJu!i>/L/ qaa a/
`Name
`/ A-FO Ez.' il' /9i/g^g,#/,a/
`ft*c/!o<, AK 97$zv
`Mailing address
`o/
`elephorie
`
`o'
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
`OrggfP'C.Ay/oA
`rCJ>^0 &D-: £><?-as— of 977 — F=s¥-pS'
`a-A-se^ /£ la A a^tzs^a
`
`AfZSfVZ pf^LMPILI Ohhfi}-^
`(Full name of plaintiff in this action)
`Plaintiff,
`
`Case No.
`
`(To be supplied by the Court)
`
`vs.
`
`;
`,-DcfsJ-
`> IPSSS-Y Co u^-ry rkt s^^rt-z - Camcjh>t ttJ
`for/under
`>) PCS ^ mm ‘ ^ ° rJSrj> CHAiZUps A Ri^rrC
`Tbz. T— Pou
`3i -^X-c^-ooojy^SL-^
`
`PROSE COMPLAINT
`
`&iz.Lrr#-L.iTy
`
`(Type of complaint)
`Co a cLut>£?£> &i
`gp>m^fz PhzgtnzAri^
`CJ-dfeS) —J- iJA?
`l/C^TZySfCiC AyJt>
`Aya=£i
`
`(Full names of ALL defendant(s) in this action.
`Do NOT use ef a/.)
`
`Defendant(s).
`
`A. Jurisdiction
`
`district Court for the District of Alaska is invoked under:
`^jr^J»c^S^!no^e^-\'^5^
`tf-pS CT^£ \$3>\<m*rJ bvac me p~5 TVe? 0Q^nfUy A a^rr~ Pfr^rzj.
`-PWi
`R&i v<?i niev.cMl.Y 'TPem-^o ^
`Sc^-r^r-
`r—•
`ju^.y jM&iJzy&Ks&y **<E>'bu/eje?k-l
`c^^c.Lxib&> B'i
`3M<iSVictor 3>0 k^%\5r.fU^ Cjtfe
`p'7g;qfo iwe.tr
`
`PS22
`
`
`
`No.
`
`19-
`
`IN THE
`
`SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
`
`0- 0-\H)aJ — PETITIONER
`
`(Your Name)
`
`gv.pe
`
`VS.
`e£;<%t RESPONDENTS)
`
`PROOF OF SERVICE
`
`; _ -
`
`*
`
`I fesTUS Q,
`, do swear or declare that on this date,
`JXiLy
`20 S, as required by Supreme Court Kule 29 I have
`served the enclosed MOTION POE LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
`and PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI on each party to the above proceeding
`or that pat-ty’s counsel, and on every other person required to be served, by depositing
`an envelope containing the above documents in the United States mail properly addressed
`to each of them and with first-class postage prepald^ar by^ delivery to a thi^d-party , ^
`commercial carrier for delivery within 3 calendar day&W &SS‘jgL&ufofr 'fC'j
`®fpc*'
`^r>c^<%§. f^prskoM^su
`i
`names and addresses of those served are as follows:
`; l ;
`>/,
`s» u).
`gf&g?
`K)
`. p^^jr^nrnrnlfSi^v>a/j [ ///
`
`)
`
`Pfc
`
`(y ^sy<5~><. Co-
`aj^o^Ite's
`Tx?r-e./*.*x (w&,
`I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
`20^3-
`
`Executed
`Offish &rs
`
`(Signature)
`
`
`
`I
`
`‘
`‘
`oar
`¥,
`\
`Dok
`id
`
`.
`
`
`
`~~,
`
`‘
`
`—
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
