Clervrain v. Dunleavy

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
MANETIRONY CLERVRAIN,
Plaintiff,
vs.
MIKE DUNLEAVY,
Defendants. Case No. 3:20-cv-00279-RRB
ORDER CLARIFYING THAT THIS CASE IS CLOSED
Manetirony Clervrain, representing himself from Moore Detention
Center in Oklahoma, where he was then incarcerated, filed an initial document
entitled “Motion for Consideration and Compelling Imposition Financial Burden by
Invoking The Ant(s) Movement Act (‘TAMA’),” and an application to waive the filing
fee.1
On February 3, 2021, the Court screened the “Complaint,” as required
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), and dismissed the case without leave to amend,2
because permitting leave to amend would have been futile.3 The Court’s Dismissal
1 Dockets 1, 2.
2 Docket 3; Docket 4 (2/4/21 Judgment); see also Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th
Cir. 2010) (liberal construction of pro se pleadings) (citing Bretz v. Kelman, 773 F.2d 1026,
1027 n.1 (9th Cir. 1985) (en banc)).
3 See Gordon v. City of Oakland, 627 F.3d 1092, 1094 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Albrecht v.
Lund, 845 F.2d 193, 195 (9th Cir. 1988)).
Case 3:20-cv-00279-RRB Document 12 Filed 08/27/21 Page 1 of 4

Case 3:20-cv-00279-RRB, Clervrain v. Dunleavy
Order Clarifying that Case is Closed
Page 2 of 4
and Judgment were returned to the Court as undeliverable on March 1, 2021.4
Nothing further was filed in this case until Mr. Clervrain filed a “Notice of Change
of Address After Release From the Agencies Illegal Detention,” on July 1, 2021,
providing an address in Indiana.5
In addition, Mr. Clervrain has filed the following:
Docket 8, “Motion for [‘Prompt Notice(s)’] OR [‘Their Expertise Act’]
(‘TEA’), or Opinion(s) by the National Issues Regulatory Treaties Act (‘NIRTA’)”;
Docket 9, what appears to be a table of contents, with additional
papers, totaling 133 pages;
Docket 10, “Motion for [‘Judicial Intervention(s)’] and Clarification
Necessary by Invoking the Movement(s) on Crimes Mitigating Act (‘MOCMA’)”;
and
Docket 11, an additional 142 pages of material.
4 Dockets 5, 6.
5 See Docket 7.
Case 3:20-cv-00279-RRB Document 12 Filed 08/27/21 Page 2 of 4

Case 3:20-cv-00279-RRB, Clervrain v. Dunleavy
Order Clarifying that Case is Closed
Page 3 of 4
The Court again takes judicial notice6 that Mr. Clervrain has filed dozens of
similar cases around the United States.7 In this case, Mr. Clervrain has again filed
incomprehensible, 	frivolous 	papers 	much 	like 	he 	has 	filed 	in 	other 	courts.
Westlaw, in fact, shows an additional 22 federal court orders or recommendations
6 Judicial notice is the “court’s acceptance, for purposes of convenience and without
requiring a party’s proof, of a well-known and indisputable fact; the court’s power to accept
such a fact” Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019); see also Headwaters Inc. v. U.S.
Forest Service, 399 F.3d 1047, 1051 n. 3 (9th Cir. 2005) (“Materials from a proceeding in
another tribunal are appropriate for judicial notice.”) (citation omitted); see also Fed. R.
Evid. 201.
7 See, e.g., Clervrain v. Cissna, 20-CV-2197(EK)(LB), 2021 WL 2953219, at *1 (E.D. N.Y.,
July 14, 2021 (Almost a year after dismissal, “Plaintiff, who is no longer incarcerated, filed
two motions in this case: one entitled a ‘Motion for a More Definite Statement for Mitigating
Financial Burden or (“IFP”) Constitutional Issues by Massive issues [“Right Aggravated”]
Treatment Act,’ … and another entitled a ‘Motion for More Definite Statement for [“Prompt
Notices”] or [“Their Expertise Act”] (“TEA”), or Opinions by the National Issues Regulatory
Treaties Act (“NIRTA”)’…. I now vacate my prior Order dismissing the case, direct the
Clerk of Court to reopen the action for purposes of this Order, dismiss the complaint on
the merits, and deny Plaintiff’s recent motions as moot.”) (citations to docket omitted);
Clervrain v. Bingham, No. CIV-21-675-R, 2021 WL 3686691, at *1 (W.D. Oklahoma July
12, 2021) (Mr. Clervrain “is a prolific pro se litigator. As noted by the District Court of
Wisconsin in November 2020, Plaintiff has ‘filed more than 100 cases in federal court,
most of which have been dismissed as frivolous or for failure to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted.’”) (citing Clervrain v. Cuccinelli, No. 20-cv-989-bbc, 2020 WL
6702003, at *1 (W.D. Wis. Nov. 13, 2020)).
Case 3:20-cv-00279-RRB Document 12 Filed 08/27/21 Page 3 of 4

Case 3:20-cv-00279-RRB, Clervrain v. Dunleavy
Order Clarifying that Case is Closed
Page 4 of 4
addressing Mr. Clervrain’s federal cases around the country after the dismissal in
this case.8
As previously explained, in accordance with federal law, a court must
dismiss a case “at any time if the court determines that . . . the action or appeal--
(i) is frivolous or malicious.”9
The Clerk of Court is directed to re-send Dockets 3 and 4 to Mr. Clervrain.
This 	case 	has 	been 	dismissed 	with 	prejudice, 	as 	frivolous, 	and 	it 	is
CLOSED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated at Anchorage, Alaska this 27th day of August, 2021.
/s/ Ralph R. Beistline
Senior U.S. District Judge
8 See, e.g., Clervrain v. Duran, et al., No. 1:20-cv-01329-KWR-JFR, 2021 WL 3674783,
at *1 (D. N.M. Aug. 19, 2021) (“Plaintiff is a prolific litigator and has filed more than 100
cases in federal courts, most of which lack any connection to the forum state and have
been dismissed as frivolous or for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted.”) (citations omitted); Clervrain v. Grimes, CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:21-CV-394-GNS,
2021 WL 3356332, at *1 (W.D. Kentucky Aug. 2, 2021) (“While the complaint itself is
typed and legible, the words often do not form coherent sentences, nor do they convey
clear thoughts. Plaintiff has filed a number of similar suits in district courts throughout the
country.”) (citation omitted); Clervrain v. Marshall, 3:21-cv-316-GCM, 2021 WL 3009021,
at *1 (W.D. N.C. July 15, 2021); (“Plaintiff initiated the instant action by filing a 261-page
“Motion for [‘Prompt Notices(s)’] or [‘Their Expertise Act’] (‘TEA’) or Opinion(s) by the
National Issues Regulatory Treaties Act (‘NIRTA’),” which was docketed as a civil rights
Complaint.”).
9 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
Case 3:20-cv-00279-RRB Document 12 Filed 08/27/21 Page 4 of 4