Pectol v. Pectol

Background

Michael Pectol, representing himself, filed a complaint against Brent Pectol and moved to proceed in forma pauperis, meaning to pursue the case without paying the filing fee. The court found that Michael was unable to pay the full fees, costs, or security required to proceed.

Screening standard

The court explained that federal law requires it to review a complaint filed by someone seeking to proceed without paying fees. The court must dismiss the complaint if it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a legally valid claim, or seeks money from a defendant who is immune from that relief. The standard for deciding whether the complaint failed to state a claim was the same standard used for a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

Because Michael was representing himself, the court read his complaint liberally and gave him the benefit of reasonable doubt. But the complaint still had to provide a short, plain statement with enough facts to give the defendant notice of what he allegedly did wrong.

Court’s reasoning

The court found the complaint insufficient under the federal screening statute and Rule 8. It contained almost no factual allegations, stating only that the case was “actionable in civil and criminal areas” and that judges previously assigned to Michael’s cases might be “added to insurgent lists.” Although Michael asserted federal-question jurisdiction, he did not identify any federal statute or constitutional provision supporting that jurisdiction.

The complaint also referred to case numbers from several of Michael’s prior lawsuits and included more than one hundred pages of charging documents from Hawaii and medical records. The court held that attachments could not substitute for the required allegations in the complaint. It also stated that Michael could not evade the dismissal of earlier cases by filing a new case that incorporated those allegations by reference.

To the extent Michael intended to sue judges or court staff involved in his cases, the court explained that judges generally are immune from lawsuits seeking money damages for judicial acts and that court clerks have similar protection for tasks integral to the judicial process. The court also stated that criminal violations cannot be pursued in a civil lawsuit under the criminal provisions referenced.

Disposition

The court denied Michael’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis even though it found he could not afford the filing fees, because the action was legally frivolous and failed to state a claim. The court dismissed the complaint without leave to amend, meaning it did not allow Michael to file an amended complaint in this case. It directed the clerk to enter judgment in favor of Brent Pectol and close the case. The court also terminated Michael’s motion for a restraining order as moot.