Opinion
EDCV 21-0901 AB (RAO)
06-29-2021
ROD ANTHONY HUFF, Plaintiff, v. PEOPLE OF THE STATE, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE SUMMARY DISMISSAL
ANDRÉ BIROTTE JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
On May 19, 2021, Plaintiff Rod Anthony Huff, who is proceeding pro se and who has not paid the filing fee nor filed a proper request to proceed in forma pauperis, filed a Complaint, naming “People of the State” as the sole defendant and seeking, it appears, monetary damages against “any partie(s)” using the “registered trademark” of his name, “Rod Anthony Huff,” without authorization. Complaint at 1, 2. For the following reasons, the Complaint is dismissed with prejudice.
Plaintiff alleges that he has “reserved all common-law rights, as a secured party” as to his trademarked name and “has agreed, under the common-law, not to be bound by any contract, or commercial agreement, that [he] did not enter into knowingly, voluntar[il]y, and intentionally[.]” Id. at 2. He alleges that he has explicitly reserved all rights under the Uniform Commercial Code. Id. Plaintiff further states that he is a “secured party/creditor and a living breathing man and the holder-in-due-course over the STRAWMAN TRUST/ENG LEGIS/BC/ETC” Id. at 3.
Even construing the Complaint liberally, the Court is unable to discern a cognizable claim. See, e.g., Bendeck v. United States Bank Nat’l Assoc., 2017 WL 2726692, at *5, 6 (D. Haw. June 23, 2017) (rejecting as frivolous “sovereign citizen and/or redemption” theories utilizing “strawman” names and citing cases). Furthermore, because the Court is persuaded that Plaintiff would be unable to allege any facts regarding the use of his “trademarked” name that would state a cognizable claim, amendment would be futile in this case. See Hartmann v. Cal. Dep t of Corr. & Rehab., 707 F.3d 1114, 1130 (9th Cir. 2013) (“A district court may deny leave to amend when amendment would be futile.”).
Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED THAT the Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice.