The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hayes, Judge:
The matters before the Court are the Motion to Dismiss or for More Definite Statement (ECF No. 5) and the Motion for Order Declaring Plaintiffs Vexatious Litigants (ECF No. 6) filed by Defendant Burnett LLP, formerly known as Burnett & Matthews, LLP, erroneously sued as Michael Burnett & Matthews, LLP.
On November 7, 2011, Plaintiffs David-Wynn Miller, identified as "Plenipoteniary-Judge, Postmaster, Federal-Judge: Witness of the Vassalees-Syntax-Communication-Fraud," Freddie Reyno, and June Reyno initiated this action by filing the Complaint. (ECF No. 1).
The Complaint is captioned as follows:
For This Correct-Sentence-Structure-Communication-Parse-Syntex-Grammar
of the Claimant is With This Writ of This Amicus-Curiea With
Quo-Warrantor-Complaint-Document Against the
Against These Damaged-Persons: Freddie: Reyno and June: Reyno, With
in the San-Diego-County-Superior Court-San-Diego-Hall of Justice. For the Claimant's-Knowledge of the Fraud-
Document-Evidence-Communications are With the False and: Misleading-Parse-Syntax-Grammar-Documents by
These Vassalees. (ECF No. 1 at 1 (emphasis in original)). The Complaint begins as follows: "For the Word-Terms of
This C.-S.-S.-C.-P.-S.-G.-Now-Time-Vessel-Court-Document: :Vassalee-(Word-Meaning) Vassal=Servant of This Document,
EE=Ployee." Id. (emphasis in original). The Complaint appears to list indecipherable causes of action under the heading, "For
the Causes of this Quo-Warrantor-Complaint." Id. at 3 (emphasis in original). Plaintiffs have attached a wage garnishment form from
a case in the San Diego County Superior Court with handwritten numbers above each word, appearing to create a code. Id. at 11-13.
The wage garnishment form contains a chart on each page titled, ":Syntax-word-key-meaning:" which states: "1=Adverb, 2=Verb, 3=Adjective
, 4=Pronoun, 8=Past-time, 9=Future-time, 0=Conjunction, NC=No-Contract." Each exhibit is marked with the numbers from
the ":Syntax-word-key-meaning" chart.
On December 21, 2011, Defendant Burnett filed a Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 5) and a Motion for Order Declaring Plaintiffs Vexatious Litigants (ECF No. 6). The record does not reflect that Plaintiffs have filed any discernable response to either motion.
I. Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 5)
Defendant Burnett seeks dismissal on the grounds that the Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). In the alternative, Defendant Burnett seeks a more definite statement under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e). Defendant contends that the Complaint is indecipherable and that "it is impossible for Movant to ascertain from the Complaint any basis for federal jurisdiction, let alone what conduct it is alleged to have engaged in or what claims are being asserted against it." (ECF No. 5 at 2).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) permits dismissal for "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) provides: "A pleading that states a claim for relief must contain ... a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is appropriate where the complaint lacks a cognizable legal theory or sufficient facts to support a cognizable legal theory. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). To sufficiently state a claim to relief and survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a complaint "does not need detailed factual allegations" but the "[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). "[A] plaintiff's obligation to provide the 'grounds' of his 'entitle[ment] to relief' requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Id. (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)).
The Complaint filed by Plaintiffs is incomprehensible and unintelligible. The Court finds that Plaintiffs fail to assert "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2).Dismissal is appropriate because the indecipherable allegations of the Complaint lack any cognizable legal theory or sufficient facts to support a cognizable legal theory. See Balistreri, 901 F.2d at 699. Accordingly, the motion to dismiss is granted. The Complaint is dismissed as to all defendants based on the Court's finding that Plaintiffs fail to allege any claim showing entitlement to relief.
II. Motion for Order Declaring Plaintiffs Vexatious Litigants (ECF No. 6) Defendant Burnett contends that Plaintiffs Freddie Reyno and June Reyno, with the assistance of Plaintiff Miller, have "repeatedly and obsessively litigated and relitigated" the ownership of their former home. (ECF No. 6 at 2). Defendant Burnett contends that the Reynos have instituted at least six proceedings in both federal and state court relating to the ownership of their former home. Defendant Burnett contends that the Reynos have been declared vexatious litigants in state court and will continue filing similar indecipherable proceedings in federal court, as they have done in state court.
Under 28 U.S.C. section 1651(a), federal courts have the power to declare a party a "vexatious litigant" and order the party to obtain leave of court before filing any future lawsuit. Molski v. Evergreen Dynasty Corp., 500 F.3d 1047, 1057 (9th Cir. 2007). The Court considers four factors in determining whether a pre-filing order is appropriate: (1) whether the litigant is given notice and a reasonable opportunity to be heard before the order is entered; (2) whether the court created an "adequate record for review"; (3) whether the court made "substantive findings as to the frivolous or harassing nature of the litigant's actions"; and (4) whether the order is "narrowly tailored to closely fit the specific vice encountered." Molski, 500 F.3d at 1057 (citing De Long v. Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144, 1146 (9th Cir. 1990)). The court may also consider: (1) the litigant's history of litigation and in particular whether it entailed vexatious, harassing or duplicative lawsuits; (2) the litigant's motive in pursuing litigation; (3) whether the litigant is represented ...