Clarke v. Kijakazi

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
WILLIAM C. C.,1
Plaintiff,
vs.
KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting
Commissioner of the Social Security
Administration,
Defendant.
Case No. 1:22-cv-00090-RRB
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
On October 13, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Complaint for Review of a Social Security
Disability of Supplemental Security Income Decision, along with an Application to
Proceed in District Court without Prepaying Fees or Costs and Motion for Recusal.2
Plaintiff previously has filed 93 actions dismissed for failure to state a claim and
frivolousness.3 	Accordingly, 	the 	Court 	expeditiously 	screens 	this 	Complaint 	in
accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
1 Plaintiff’s name is partially redacted in compliance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(c)(2)(B) and the
recommendation of the Committee on Court Administration and Case Management of the Judicial
Conference of the United States. 	See Memorandum, Committee on Court Administration and
Case 	Management 	of 	the 	Judicial 	Conference 	of 	the 	United 	States 	(May 	1, 	2018),
https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/18-cv-l-suggestion_cacm_0.pdf.
2 Dockets 1–3.
3 See Clarke v. Maddow, Case. No. 1:22-cv-00007-RRB, Docket 6 for Order of Dismissal
encompassing all of Plaintiff’s prior cases.
Case 1:22-cv-00090-RRB Document 4 Filed 10/18/22 Page 1 of 9

William C. v. Kijakazi, Case No. 1:22-cv-00090-RRB
Order of Dismissal
Page 2 of 9
SCREENING REQUIREMENT
Federal law requires a court to conduct an initial screening of a civil complaint filed
by a self-represented litigant seeking to proceed in a lawsuit in federal court without
paying the filing fee.4 In this screening, a court shall dismiss the case at any time if the
court determines that the action:
(i) 	is frivolous or malicious;
(ii) 	fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or
(iii) 	seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such
relief.5
To determine whether a complaint states a valid claim for relief, courts consider whether
the complaint contains sufficient factual matter that, if accepted as true, “state[s] a claim
to relief that is plausible on its face.”6 	In conducting its review, a court must liberally
construe a self-represented plaintiff’s pleading and give the plaintiff the benefit of the
doubt.7 Before a court may dismiss any portion of a complaint for failure to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted, the court must provide the plaintiff with a statement of
the deficiencies in the complaint and an opportunity to amend or otherwise address the
4 See, e.g., Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126 n.7 (9th Cir. 2000).
5 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
6 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,
570 (2007)). 	In making this determination, a court may consider “materials that are submitted
with and attached to the Complaint.” United States v. Corinthian Colleges, 655 F.3d 984, 999 (9th
Cir. 2011) (citing Lee v. L.A., 250 F.3d 668, 688 (9th Cir. 2001)).
7 See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Bretz v. Kelman, 773 F.2d 1026,
1027 n.1 (9th Cir. 1985) (en banc)).
Case 1:22-cv-00090-RRB Document 4 Filed 10/18/22 Page 2 of 9

William C. v. Kijakazi, Case No. 1:22-cv-00090-RRB
Order of Dismissal
Page 3 of 9
problems, unless to do so would be futile.8 	Futility exists when “the allegation of other
facts consistent with the challenged pleading could not possibly cure the deficiency[.]”9
DISCUSSION
Previously, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s prior 93 civil actions, in which Plaintiff
pleaded that an extensive conspiracy exists involving medical device implantation, cyber
hacking, theft and distribution of his intellectual property, and his forced participation in
illicit and illegal pornography. The Complaint before the Court, while written on a form for
appellate review of decisions made by the Social Security Administration, does not plead
any facts that indicate that there has been an appealable decision by the Social Security
Administration. Instead, Plaintiff pleads facts consistent with his prior dismissed actions.
The Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and is frivolous.
Accordingly, this civil action must be dismissed.
I. 	Complaint & Motion
Plaintiff alleges that the Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), for
an appeal of a Title II Disability Insurance Benefit Claim, and 42 U.S.C. §1383(c)(3), for
an appeal of a Title XVI Supplemental Security Income Claim.10 Where the form prompts
a response regarding the date the Commissioner’s final decision, Plaintiff responds:
“Filing an appeal, I received from Ralph A Beistline a dismissal of a filed court case via
mail 8/7/22) 	Demanding court hearing before a judge by subpoena of all evidence and
8 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)).
9 See Schreiber Distributing Co. v. Serv-Well Furniture Co., 806 F.2d 1393, 1401 (9th Cir. 1986).
10 Docket 1 at 2.
Case 1:22-cv-00090-RRB Document 4 Filed 10/18/22 Page 3 of 9

William C. v. Kijakazi, Case No. 1:22-cv-00090-RRB
Order of Dismissal
Page 4 of 9
participants!”11 For the Statement of the Claim asking what facts were not supported by
substantial evidence in the record, Plaintiff states “Judge Ralph A Beistline excepted
some photo evidence, but did not allow me to present my case in court/in addition his
direct involvement and hacked into my medical equip. using Apple apps and website!”12
For the Statement of the Claim asking what legal error occurred, Plaintiff states “Medical
Fraud/Malpractice + Organized Crime.”13 	For relief, Plaintiff checks all of the possible
options on the form, thereby requesting the Court: (1) issue a summons for Defendant’s
appearance; (2) order Defendant to produce a certified copy and record; (3) modify
Defendant’s decision and retroactively grant maximum benefits; (4) alternatively, remand
Defendant’s decision for reconsideration; and (5) grant any additional relief that is just
and proper.14
Plaintiff’s untitled companion motion, docketed as Motion for Recusal, at Docket 3
states:
Please 	recuse 	Judge 	Ralph 	A 	Beistline 	for 	judicial
misconduct, also a co[-]conspirator of organized crime cover
up! I will remind you I have a surgically implanted body cam
system that transmits and receives! Also note Judge Ralph A
Beistline co[-]conspired with accused civil docket defendants
and was bribed to dismiss as frivolous! Demand my 1st, 4th,
7th Amendment right for civil trial and subpoena all witness
11 Docket 1 at 3.
12 Docket 1 at 3.
13 Docket 1 at 3.
14 Docket 1 at 3.
Case 1:22-cv-00090-RRB Document 4 Filed 10/18/22 Page 4 of 9

William C. v. Kijakazi, Case No. 1:22-cv-00090-RRB
Order of Dismissal
Page 5 of 9
hostile participants into court. 	Be advised, Joanne is a
participant in these all[e]gations.
Plaintiff signed and dated the motion.15
Neither the Complaint, nor motion include a mention a final decision from the
Social Security Administration’s Appeals Council.16 The Court takes judicial notice17 that
the Complaint and Motion echo the same core theory and allegations previously
dismissed by the Court.18 	Additionally, the Court takes specific judicial of C. v.
Barnhardt,19 Case No. 1:22-cv-00053-RRB, where Plaintiff submitted a Complaint for
Review of a Social Security Disability or Supplemental Security Income Decision alleging
organized crime and referring to his previously filed civil cases.20 In that action, Plaintiff
also did not provide an administrative Social Security decision over which this Court would
have jurisdiction.
15 Docket 3 at 1.
16 See Dockets 1 & 3.
17 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.”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also Fed. R.
Evid. 201.
18 Supra, note 3 (The gravamen of Plaintiff’s prior allegations is that an implanted body camera
connected with his pacemaker is being hacked; his intellectual property is being stolen and
distributed; he is forced to participate in illegal pornography and human trafficking; the
pornography is being disseminated around the world by all Defendants, with more to be named,
who are part of an organized crime ring exploiting millions of victims.).
19 Supra, note 1 (last name partially redacted for privacy).
20 C. v. Barnhardt, Case No. 1:22-cv-00053-RRB, Docket 1.
Case 1:22-cv-00090-RRB Document 4 Filed 10/18/22 Page 5 of 9

William C. v. Kijakazi, Case No. 1:22-cv-00090-RRB
Order of Dismissal
Page 6 of 9
II. 	Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction is “[a] court’s power to decide a case or issue a decree.”21 A court’s
subject matter jurisdiction is its “statutory or constitutional power to adjudicate a case.”22
As a federal court, this Court has limited subject matter jurisdiction. 	It possesses “only
that power authorized by the Constitution and statute.”23 This means that the Court has
the authority to hear only specified types of cases.24 	“In civil cases, subject matter
jurisdiction is generally conferred upon federal district courts either through diversity
jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1332, or federal question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1331.”25
Federal question jurisdiction provides a federal court the authority to consider
cases brought under the United States Constitution or federal statutes.26 	In order to
pursue an appeal of a final decision from the Social Security Administration, a litigant
must exhaust administrative remedies before filing a Complaint in federal district court.27
Plaintiff alleges that he seeks to pursue an appeal and submits a form complaint
intended to trigger a federal district court’s jurisdiction for appellate review of an
administrative decision made by the Social Security Administration. However, Plaintiff’s
21 BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY, (11th ed. 2019).
22 Steel Co. v. Citizens for Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83, 89 (1998).
23 Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994) (citations omitted); see
also, e.g. A-Z Intern. V. Phillips, 323 F.3d 1141, 1145 (9th Cir. 2003).
24 See, e.g., United States v. Marks, 530 F.3d 779, 810 (9th Cir. 2008), citing DaimlerChrysler v.
Cuno, 547 U.S. 332, 342 (2006); United States v. Sumner, 226 F.3d 1005, 1010 (9th Cir. 2000).
25 Peralta v. Hispanic Bus., Inc., 419 F.3d 1064, 1068 (9th Cir. 2005).
26 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
27 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.981, 416.1481 (Effect of Appeals Council’s decision or denial of review).
Case 1:22-cv-00090-RRB Document 4 Filed 10/18/22 Page 6 of 9

William C. v. Kijakazi, Case No. 1:22-cv-00090-RRB
Order of Dismissal
Page 7 of 9
allegations do not support that he seeks to file an appeal of a final decision by the Social
Security Administration. Without a final decision from the Social Security Administration,
this Court lacks jurisdiction.28 	Therefore, this action must be dismissed for lack of
jurisdiction.
III. 	Notice of Appeal
As pleaded, it appears that Plaintiff is not seeking an appeal of a Social Security
decision, but rather desires to appeal this Court’s omnibus Order of Dismissal issued in
his previously dismissed 93 civil actions. 	The Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure
require that a Notice of Appeal be filed with the federal district court within 30 days of the
entry of judgment.29 A litigant may make a motion to extend the time to file a Notice of
Appeal but must do so no later than 30 days after the original 30-day deadline and shows
excusable neglect or good cause.30
Judgments issued in Plaintiff’s prior cases from July 28, 2022,31 through August 1,
2022.32 Construing the possible time accounting most favorably to Plaintiff, Plaintiff has
missed his Notice of Appeals deadlines. 	Plaintiff’s original 30-day deadline to submit a
Notice of Appeal passed on August 31, 2022. Furthermore, Plaintiff’s additional 30-day
deadline to move for additional time to file a Notice of Appeal passed on September 30,
28 Bass v. Soc. Sec Admin., 872 F.2d 832, 833 (9th Cir. 1989).
29 Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A).
30 Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5)(A).
31 See as selected examples Clarke v. Maddow, Case No. 1:22-cv-00007-RRB, Docket 7 and
Clarke v. Glory Hall, 4:22-cv-00012-RRB, Docket 9.
32 See as selected example, Clarke v. Fox News, Case No. 3:22-cv-00105-RRB, Docket 5.
Case 1:22-cv-00090-RRB Document 4 Filed 10/18/22 Page 7 of 9

William C. v. Kijakazi, Case No. 1:22-cv-00090-RRB
Order of Dismissal
Page 8 of 9
2022. A federal district court may reopen the time to file an appeal, but only if the Court
finds that the moving party did not receive notice of the entry of the judgment or order
within 21 days of entry.33 	Here, Plaintiff pleads that he received notice on August 7,
2022—7 days after the last entry of judgments.
The Court cannot construe the Complaint as a Notice of Appeal to Plaintiff’s prior
cases, because Plaintiff’s deadlines have run, and he cannot fulfill the required conditions
to reopen the time to file a Notice of Appeal.
IV. 	Frivolousness
In accordance with federal law, a court must dismiss a case “at any time if the court
determines that the action or appeal is frivolous or malicious.”34 	The term frivolous, or
frivolous as a matter of law, is a legal term. It means that a case or complaint “lacks an
arguable basis in either in law or in fact.”35 When a court evaluates whether a complaint
is frivolous, it must “pierce the veil of the complaint’s factual allegations to determine
whether they are fanciful, fantastic, or delusional.”36 	Additionally, a complaint may be
frivolous if it merely repeats pending or previously litigated claims.”37
Plaintiff’s Complaint renews his prior allegations of conspiracy, medical fraud, and
organized crime. 	As addressed above and procedurally, the Court does not have
jurisdiction. Additionally, as previously explained, these allegations do not state a viable
33 Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6)(A).
34 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1); 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c)(1).
35 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989).
36 Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327–28; see also Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992).
37 Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 n.2 (9th Cir. 1995).
Case 1:22-cv-00090-RRB Document 4 Filed 10/18/22 Page 8 of 9

William C. v. Kijakazi, Case No. 1:22-cv-00090-RRB
Order of Dismissal
Page 9 of 9
civil legal claim; and therefore, do not have an arguable basis in law.38 Furthermore, the
Court renews its prior finding that finds that Plaintiff’s claims do not have an arguable
basis in fact.39 Lastly and most compelling, this Complaint alludes, extends, and repeats
the previously litigated claims in his prior 93 actions.40
The Court finds Plaintiff’s Complaint does not have an arguable basis in law or fact
and repeats previously litigated claims. 	Therefore, this action must be dismissed as
frivolous.
CONCLUSION
The Court lacks jurisdiction over this Complaint. Additionally, the Court construes
the Complaint as a Notice of Appeal. Lastly, the Complaint is frivolous.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1. 	This civil action must be DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction and as frivolous.
2. 	All pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT.
3. 	The Clerk of Court shall issue a final judgment.
DATED this 18th day of October, 2022, at Anchorage, Alaska.
/s/ Ralph R. Beistline
RALPH R. BEISTLINE
Senior United States District Judge
38 See Clarke v. Maddow, Case No. 1:22-cv-00007-RRB, Docket 6 at 34–37.
39 See Clarke v. Maddow, Case No. 1:22-cv-00007-RRB, Docket 6 at 37–39.
40 See Clarke v. Maddow, Case No. 1:22-cv-00007-RRB, Docket 6.
Case 1:22-cv-00090-RRB Document 4 Filed 10/18/22 Page 9 of 9