Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Khazali v. Robart

United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle

July 27, 2017

MASOUD KHAZALI, Plaintiff,
v.
JAMES L. ROBART, Defendant.

          ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECUSAL AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

          RICARDO S. MARTINEZ CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Pro Se Plaintiff Masoud Khazali has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this matter. Dkt. #4. The Complaint was posted on the docket on July 25, 2017. Dkt. #5. Summons has not yet been issued.

         As an initial matter, Plaintiff brings a Motion for “Recusal and Direct Review by Jury.” Dkt. #6. Plaintiff “request[s] this case to be reviewed directly by a 12 member jury because Federal judges cannot defend their own States, whom they are working for, at their own court against immigrants whom the States have been abusing for more than 200 years!” Id. Plaintiff makes tangential references to the United States of America's promotion of slavery and the bible. Plaintiff ends with a conciliatory parenthetical: “(Judges could read the document and issue corrective orders to correct the previous orders).” Id. The Court finds that Plaintiff has presented insufficient evidence to support a request for recusal. Plaintiff does not request that any one judge be recused, rather that all judges generally recuse themselves; this is not relief that can be granted. The Court notes that Plaintiff is apparently satisfied with this Court's authority to hear this case as long as it rules in Plaintiff's favor; this further persuades the Court that denial is appropriate. Plaintiff's allegations, similar to those in his Complaint described below, appear frivolous. Accordingly, this Motion will be denied.

         Plaintiff brings this action against the United States of America (“the Government”). Dkt. #5 at 1. Plaintiff states that the Government “acted unconstitutional [sic] by Kidnapping [sic] the child of the immigrant (and the U.S. citizen) Mr. Khazali, ” and that the Government “supports and promotes such a crime act by promoting Christianity that confirms the act of the Kidnapping and slavery of immigrant children (in its book of Bible) and by naming its Capital, State, university, currency and stamp after the slave master (Washington) who supported Kidnapping immigrant children and Slavery.” Id. Plaintiff goes on to describe our nation's first president, George Washington, as “an English officer who murdered French” and “an English who used arms and explosives to fight the then current Government [during the American Revolution]; an act of terrorism.” Id. at 1. Plaintiff alleges that the Government “supports Kidnapping, child abuse, slavery, gender and racial inequality and terrorism as long as it symbolizes Washington and names its capital after such a criminal and prints its currency in the name of such criminal terrorist…” Id. Plaintiff's views on George Washington and Christianity surface repeatedly and unexpectedly in the Complaint. Plaintiff appears to bring this lawsuit based on the Honorable Judge James. L. Robart's denial of Plaintiff's motion for a stay in a prior or concurrent action. See Id. at 3. Plaintiff argues that “judges should not be allowed to preside over the conflicts between a citizen and a State (Or the States)” and that “no court should oversee a conflict between a court and a citizen.” Id. at 3-4.

         Plaintiff includes the following attachments to his Complaint: “The Kidnap Loving State, ” which provides a sort of history of slavery in the United States; “The State of the Claim, ” which provides some procedural background, “The Tort of the Court, ” which appears at first glance to allege violations of the Constitution committed by various courts, but actually attempts to connect modern court procedures like asking witnesses to raise their right hand or hearing testimony from witnesses to ancient religious practices; “Life: the Live Connection through Space, ” which engages in a metaphysical discussion of “invisible energy” and “hidden life in light;” “The Immune Executioner, ” which discusses injury to the Plaintiff, including Plaintiff “los[ing] his mind, ” caused by the separation of Plaintiff from his child; “Prevention of Abuse, ” broadly discussing his claim; and “Valuing Property over Humanity, ” which accuses the Court of continuing historic practices of slavery. See Id. at 5-18.

         The Court will dismiss a Complaint at any time if the action fails to state a claim, raises frivolous or malicious claims, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

         The Complaint does not clearly identify what laws or statues Plaintiff believes give rise to a claim against the Government, and Plaintiff does not support his claims with specific facts presented in a clear and understandable manner. Plaintiff's allegations are extremely difficult to follow with unconnected facts and broad sweeping accusations of crime connected to unrelated historical events or possibly official court actions. It is unclear from the Complaint how the Court has subject matter jurisdiction, why the Government would not be immune from suit, or even what relief Plaintiff is seeking.

         Considering all of the above, Plaintiff's Complaint fails to state a claim and appears frivolous and malicious. Plaintiff's Complaint suffers from deficiencies that, if not adequately explained in response to this Order, will require dismissal. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

         In Response to this Order, Plaintiff must write a short and plain statement telling the Court (1) the laws, statutes, or specific portions of the Constitution upon which his claims are based, (2) how Defendant violated those laws or statutes causing harm to Plaintiff, and (3) why this case should not be dismissed as frivolous. This Response may not exceed six (6) pages. Plaintiff is not permitted to file additional pages as attachments. The Court will take no further action in this case until Plaintiff has submitted this Response.

         The Court hereby finds and ORDERS:

         (1) Plaintiff's Motion for Recusal (Dkt. #6) is DENIED.

         (2) Plaintiff shall file a Response to this Order to Show Cause containing the detail above no later than twenty-one (21) days from the date of this Order. Failure to file this Response will result in dismissal of this case. The Clerk shall send a copy ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.