1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 JOSHUA D. BLAND, ) Case No.: 1:23-cv-1000 JLT EPG ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER DISMISSING THE ACTION WITH ) PREJUDICE AS FRIVOLOUS AND 13 v. ) TERMINATING THE MOTION TO ISSUE ) 14 TREASURER OF THE UNITED STATES, ) SUMMONS AS MOOT ) 15 Defendant. ) (Docs. 1, 6) ) 16 )

17 Joshua Bland, a prisoner at Kern Valley State Prison, seeks to hold the Treasurer of the United 18 States liable for the unlawful conversion of his property, violations of the Constitution of the United 19 States, and “unlawful seizure of personal property not within admiralty or maritime jurisdiction.” 20 (Doc. 1 at 1-2, emphasis omitted.) Plaintiff also requests that the Court issue summons in this action. 21 (Doc. 6.) For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds the allegations raised are frivolous and the 22 action is DISMISSED with prejudice. 23 I. Screening 24 Generally, the Court is required to screen complaints brought by inmates seeking relief against 25 a governmental entity or an officer of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must 26 dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally "frivolous or 27 malicious," that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief 28 from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). 1 Moreover, “[n]otwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, 2 the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that … the action or appeal … fails 3 to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). A claim is frivolous 4 “when the alleged arise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible, whether or not there are 5 judicially noticeable facts available to contradict them.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 6 (1992). Put another way, a complaint is frivolous within the meaning of Section 1915 “where it lacks 7 an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). 8 II. Pleading Standards 9 A pleading must include a statement affirming the court’s jurisdiction, “a short and plain 10 statement of the claim showing the pleader is entitled to relief; and . . . a demand for the relief sought, 11 which may include relief in the alternative or different types of relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). A 12 complaint must give fair notice and state the elements of the plaintiff’s claim. Jones v. Cmty 13 Redevelopment Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). The Supreme Court noted, 14 Rule 8 does not require detailed factual allegations, but it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation. A 15 pleading that offers labels and conclusions or a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. Nor does a complaint suffice if 16 it tenders naked assertions devoid of further factual enhancement.

17 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Vague 18 and conclusory allegations do not support a cause of action. Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 19 268 (9th Cir. 1982). The Court clarified further, 20 [A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” [Citation]. A claim has 21 facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 22 misconduct alleged. [Citation]. The plausibility standard is not akin to a “probability requirement,” but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that 23 a defendant has acted unlawfully. [Citation]. Where a complaint pleads facts that are “merely consistent with” a defendant’s liability, it “stops short 24 of the line between possibility and plausibility of ‘entitlement to relief.

25 Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679 (citations omitted). When factual allegations are well-pled, a court should 26 assume their truth and determine whether they support a conclusion that the plaintiff is entitled to relief; 27 legal conclusions are not entitled to the same assumption of truth. Id. 28 /// 1 III. Discussion and Analysis 2 Plaintiff alleges that he made a $100,000,000.00 bond that he mailed to the Treasurer of the 3 United States for public use as an investment. (Doc. 1 at 8.) Plaintiff indicated the bond was issued 4 on behalf of the “Joshua Davis Brand Estate Trust” and the bond was “self-backed.” (See id. at 14.) 5 Plaintiff now seeks an order to the Treasurer of the United States to pay “the full value of the private 6 bond.” (Id. at 8; see also id. at 8-9.) He contends the failure to pay the of the bond constitutes an 7 unlawful conversion of property under 50 U.S.C § 4309(a) and California Uniform Commercial Code 8 Section 1376(a); a violation of the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States; a 9 violation Title III, Clause 2 of the Constitution; and “unlawful seizure of personal property not within 10 admiralty or maritime jurisdiction.” (Id. at 1.) 11 A review of Plaintiff’s complaint reveals that he clearly believes himself to be a “sovereign 12 citizen” who was entitled to create his own bond and funds. (See generally Doc. 1.) This is consistent 13 with other actions filed by Plaintiff, in which he espoused similar sovereign citizen beliefs. See, e.g., 14 Bland v. Warden, No. 2:21-cv-00518-TLN-DB-P, 2022 WL 1597730 (E.D. Cal. May 19, 2022), 15 adopted by 2022 WL 4359068 (E.D. Cal. Sep. 20, 2022); Bland v. Moffett, No. 1:19-cv-01750-JLT- 16 SKO, 2022 WL 1198382, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 22, 2022). Importantly, contentions based upon the 17 sovereign citizen ideology are considered frivolous, and “courts ordinarily reject similar contentions 18 without extended argument.” See, e.g., United States v. Ward, 182 F.3d 930 (9th Cir. 1999); United 19 States v. Davis, 586 F. App'x 534, 537 (11th Cir. 2014) (explaining courts “confronted with sovereign 20 citizens’” arguments “have summarily rejected their legal theories”). As this Court previously 21 observed, “[s]overeign citizens are known to clog up the courts with indecipherable filings.” Moffett, 22 2022 WL 1198382 at *2 (internal quotation marks omitted). The complaint before the Court is, in fact, 23 such a frivolous and nearly indecipherable filing. 24 To the extent Plaintiff believes this bond he created and executed warrants the payment of 25 funds, courts have also rejected the sovereign citizen theories that they can create money, a created 26 promissory note (such as a bond) is money, as frivolous. See, e.g., Caetano v. Depository Trust Co., 27 2022 WL 3043277 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 2, 2022) (rejecting claims based on the theory that the plaintiff 28 could create his own bonds and promissory notes as “indisputably meritless legal theory”); Demmler v. 1 || Bank One NA, 2006 WL 640499, at *3 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 9, 2006) (rejecting the plaintiff's assertion— 2 || that the promissory note he executed was the equivalent of “money”— as “utterly frivolous and 3 || lack[ing] any legal foundation whatsoever”). Plaintiff's complaint thus lacks an arguable basis in bot 4 || fact and in law. 5 ||1V.__ Conclusion and Order 6 Based upon the foregoing, the Court finds the Complaint filed in this action is frivolous. 7 || Accordingly, the Court ORDERS: 8 1. The complaint filed July 5, 2023 (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED with prejudice as frivolous. 9 2. The motion to issue summons (Doc. 6.) is terminated as MOOT. 10 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 11 12 IS SO ORDERED. 13] Dated: _ January 24, 2024 Charis [Tourn 14 TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28