Ohan v. Zion et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
FESTUS O. OHAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
ZION, ISRAEL, SAUDI ARABIA, THE
EUROPEAN UNION, and THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendants.
Case No. 3:22-cv-00266-RRB
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
On December 12, 2022, self-represented litigant Festus O. Ohan (“Plaintiff”)
brought suit against Zion, Israel, Saudi Arabia, the European Union, and the United
States of America (“Defendants”).1 	Plaintiff also filed a civil cover sheet and an
Application 	to 	Waive 	the 	Filing 	Fee.2 	He 	also 	paid 	the 	filing 	fee 	(receipt
#100002143).3 	Plaintiff 	subsequently 	filed 	multiple 	“Additional 	Related
Documents” and “Notices.”4
1 Docket 1. Although Plaintiff names five defendants on the first page, his Complaint includes
only three claims. Claim 1 is against Zion; Claim 2 is against Israel; and Claim 3 is against Saudi
Arabia. Docket 1 at 3–5.
2 Dockets 1–3
3 Docket 1.
4 Notices are a type of filing that rarely should be used and only for administrative functions—i.e.,
to notify the court of a change of address or for an attorney to appear to represent a client. Notices
that do not comply with the procedural rules cannot be considered and should not be filed.
Case 3:22-cv-00266-RRB Document 14 Filed 03/29/23 Page 1 of 11

Ohan v. Zion et al.
Order Dismissing Complaint with Leave to Amend
Page 2 of 11
Plaintiff brings his Complaint “under (1) preplanned genocides and fraud[,
and] (2) ‘Act of God,’ false Claims and acquisitions.”5 Plaintiff’s claims, like others
he has filed, contain unintelligible statements and allegations that are difficult to
follow, frivolous, or otherwise clearly devoid of merit. 	For relief, Plaintiff seeks
damages in the “zillions.”6 	Plaintiff also requests an order that offenders must
relinquish all real property and pay reparations, and several declarations regarding
“biblicated [sic] rulings … abominable acts,” and Qui Tam.7
While non-prisoner complaints are not subject to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) or
1915A screening requirements when the filing fee is paid, the Court retains the
inherent authority to sua sponte dismiss a claim for failure to comply with Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 8 (“Rule 8”)8 or for lack of jurisdiction.9 	To the extent the
Court can decipher the Complaint, it is immediately apparent that the pleading is
fundamentally flawed. 	Indeed, this Court either lacks jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s
claims or the claims are unsupported by any “cognizable legal theory” and, thus,
warrant dismissal.
5 Docket 1 at 1.
6 Docket 1 at 6.
7 Id.
8 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) authorizes a district court to dismiss a complaint with
prejudice for failure to comply with Rule 8(a).
9 See United States v. Hays, 515 U.S. 737, 742 (1995) (“federal courts are under an independent
obligation to examine their own jurisdiction.”).
Case 3:22-cv-00266-RRB Document 14 Filed 03/29/23 Page 2 of 11

Ohan v. Zion et al.
Order Dismissing Complaint with Leave to Amend
Page 3 of 11
Although the Court is doubtful Plaintiff can allege facts to state a valid claim,
in the interests of fundamental fairness, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff 30 days to file
an Amended Complaint that complies with the Local and Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. 	The Court offers the following guidance should Plaintiff choose to
amend his Complaint.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 (“Rule 8”)
A complaint violates Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 when it is “needlessly
long, 	... 	highly 	repetitious, 	or 	confused, 	or 	consist[s] 	of 	incomprehensible
rambling.”10 The Court “simply does not have the resources” to ignore the pleading
requirements 	of Rule 	8.11 	Instead, 	the 	Court 	must 	insist 	on 	compliance
with Rule 8. 	Any 	amended complaint 	must only contain a “short and plain
statement of the claim,”12 and “each allegation must be simple, concise, and
direct.”13
Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction is “[a] court’s power to decide a case or issue a decree.”14 	A
court’s 	subject 	matter 	jurisdiction 	is 	its 	“statutory 	or 	constitutional 	power 	to
10 Calfasso, U.S. ex rel. v. Gen. Dynamics C4 Sys., Inc., 637 F.3d 1047, 1059 (9th Cir. 2011).
11 See Savage v. Dickinson, 2013 WL 78475 at *3 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 4, 2013) (“The court simply does
not have the resources to scour the 59 pages of plaintiff’s complaint and 90 pages of exhibits and
organize the allegations contained therein.”).
12 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2).
13 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1).
14 BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY (11th ed. 2019).
Case 3:22-cv-00266-RRB Document 14 Filed 03/29/23 Page 3 of 11

Ohan v. Zion et al.
Order Dismissing Complaint with Leave to Amend
Page 4 of 11
adjudicate a case.”15 	As a federal court, this Court has limited subject matter
jurisdiction. 	It possesses “only that power authorized by the Constitution and
statute.”16 This means that the Court has the authority to hear only specified types
of cases.17 	“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.”18 	The burden of establishing
jurisdiction rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction.19 	Despite great effort and
liberal construction in reading the Complaint, the Court cannot ascertain the
precise substance of plaintiff’s grievances, who is allegedly responsible, nor what
rights under the Constitution or laws of the United States Plaintiff believes were
violated.
Claims Against “Zion”
Plaintiff brings suit against “Zion → Zionic Movements” a citizen of “United
Kingdom, USA, Washington DC, USA + Global, Utah” working as a “Religious
Group” for “Non-Profit Group.” 	Like his other claims, Plaintiff’s narrative includes
unintelligible statements and allegations that are difficult to follow. From what the
15 Steel Co. v. Citizens for Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83, 89 (1998).
16 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).
17 See, e.g., United States v. Marks, 530 F.3d 779, 810 (9th Cir. 2008); Daimler Chrysler v. Cuno,
547 U.S. 332, 342 (2006); United States v. Sumner, 226 F.3d 1005, 1010 (9th Cir. 2000).
18 Peralta v. Hispanic Bus., Inc., 419 F.3d 1064, 1068 (9th Cir. 2005).
19 Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 377.
Case 3:22-cv-00266-RRB Document 14 Filed 03/29/23 Page 4 of 11

Ohan v. Zion et al.
Order Dismissing Complaint with Leave to Amend
Page 5 of 11
Court can discern, Plaintiff attempts to bring suit against a potentially limitless
number of unknown defendants for generations of events stemming from the
beginning of time. 	Plaintiff presents the Court with a theory of far-reaching
conspiracy describing decades of “Zionic movements” where people multiplied,
“acted as gods/lords to universally commit all kinds of abominable acts and use
religion, constitutions, and legislations to control subjects,” massacred property
owners, and falsified history.20
The “case or controversy” requirement of Article III of the United States
Constitution limits the federal courts’ jurisdiction by requiring that plaintiffs have
“standing” to bring the lawsuit.21 	In order to have standing, a party “must assert
his own legal rights and interests and cannot rest his claim to relief on the legal
rights or interests of third parties.”22 	To the extent Plaintiff might assert a claim
based on any violation of his ancestors’ federal constitutional rights, a plaintiff may
not be awarded damages based on the violation of another individual’s federal
constitutional rights. 	To the extent Plaintiff intends to assert a claim for damages
based on violations of his rights, Plaintiff’s Complaint does not include (1) the
specific harm that Plaintiff is alleging has occurred to him; (2) when that harm
occurred; (3) where that harm was caused; and (4) who he is alleging caused that
20 Docket 1 at 3.
21 See, e.g., Alaska Right to Life Pol. Action Comm. v. Feldman, 504 F.3d 840, 848–49 (9th Cir.
2007).
22 Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 499 (1975).
Case 3:22-cv-00266-RRB Document 14 Filed 03/29/23 Page 5 of 11

Ohan v. Zion et al.
Order Dismissing Complaint with Leave to Amend
Page 6 of 11
specific harm to him. 	Plaintiff is advised that unnamed defendants must be
identified before an action can go forward.
Claims Against Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the European Union
The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (“FSIA”) provides the sole basis for
obtaining jurisdiction over a foreign state in the courts of this country.23 	If it is
apparent from the pleadings or uncontested that a defendant is a foreign state, as
in this case,24 “the burden of production shifts to the plaintiff to offer evidence that
an 	exception 	applies.”25 	Unless 	a 	specified 	exception 	to 	foreign 	sovereign
immunity applies, the Court lacks jurisdiction.26
Claims Against the United States and United Nations
Although Plaintiff names the United States and United Nations on the face
of his Complaint, he does not allege specific facts regarding how either defendant
violated his rights. A complaint that “names a defendant in the caption but contains
no allegations indicating how the defendant violated the law or injured the plaintiff”
23 28 U.S.C.A. § 1602.
24 Phaneuf v. Republic of Indonesia, 106 F.3d 302, 306 (9th Cir. 1997); see also Butler v. Sukhoi
Co., 579 F.3d 1307, 1313 n.8 (11th Cir. 2009); Big Sky Network Can., Ltd. v. Sichuan Provincial
Gov’t, 533 F.3d 1183, 1189 (10th Cir. 2008); Robinson v. Gov’t of Malay., 269 F.3d 133, 141 n.7
(2d Cir. 2001).
25 Id. See also Siderman de Blake, 965 F.2d at 707–08 (discussing whether plaintiffs met their
burden of production that exceptions to the FSIA applied); Randolph v. Budget Rent-A-Car, 97
F.3d 319, 323 (9th Cir. 1996) (federal jurisdiction does not attach until it is determined that the
foreign sovereign lacks immunity under the provisions of the FSIA.).
26 Corzo v. Banco Central de Reserva del Peru, 243 F.3d 519, 522 (9th Cir. 2001) (“The [FSIA]
conflates the usually distinct questions of sovereign immunity, subject matter jurisdiction, and
personal jurisdiction.”).
Case 3:22-cv-00266-RRB Document 14 Filed 03/29/23 Page 6 of 11

Ohan v. Zion et al.
Order Dismissing Complaint with Leave to Amend
Page 7 of 11
may be dismissed under Rule 8(a)(2).27 	Plaintiff must tell the Court (1) what law
Defendant broke; (2) what Defendant did that broke the law; and (3) how Plaintiff
was harmed by Defendant’s conduct.
Conclusion
“Unless it is absolutely clear that no amendment can cure the defect ... a pro
se litigant is entitled to notice of the complaint’s deficiencies and an opportunity to
amend prior to dismissal of the action.”28 	Plaintiff is granted one opportunity to
amend in accordance with the guidance provided in this Order. The Court strongly
encourages Plaintiff to limit any Amended Complaint to 30 pages or less29 and to
file an amended complaint in accordance with the guidance herein.
Caution to Plaintiff
Having 	concluded 	that 	leave 	to 	amend 	is 	warranted, 	the 	Court 	next
addresses the voluminous filings with which Plaintiff has inundated this Court and
the Clerk’s office since submitting his Complaint. 	While the Court may act with
27 Cf. Morabito v. Blum, 528 F. Supp. 252, 262 (S.D.N.Y. 1981) (describing the “well-settled”
practice of dismissing pursuant to Rule 8(a)(2) a complaint that “names a defendant in the caption
but contains no allegations indicating how the defendant violated the law or injured the plaintiff”).
28 Lucas v. Dep’t of Corr., 66 F.3d 245, 248 (9th Cir. 1995); accord Cuoco v. Moritsugu, 222 F.3d
99, 112 (opining courts “should not dismiss [a pro se complaint] without granting leave to amend
at least once when a liberal reading of the complaint gives any indication that a claim might be
stated.” (quoting Gomez v. USAA Fed. Sav. Bank, 171 F.3d 794, 795 (2d Cir. 1999))).
29 See Todd v. Ellis, 2013 WL 3242229 at *2 (E.D. Cal. 2013) (ordering pro se plaintiff to limit its
amended complaint to 	“no 	more 	than 	20 	pages 	total 	(including 	any 	exhibits 	or
attachments)”); Struggs v. Pfeiffer, 2019 WL 6211220, at *2 (E.D. Cal. 2019) (“Twenty-five pages
is more than sufficient for [p]laintiff to identify his claims and set forth specific facts in support of
those claims.”).
Case 3:22-cv-00266-RRB Document 14 Filed 03/29/23 Page 7 of 11

Ohan v. Zion et al.
Order Dismissing Complaint with Leave to Amend
Page 8 of 11
leniency 	towards 	a 	self-represented 	litigant, 	attorneys 	and 	self-represented
litigants are expected to know and comply with the same rules of civil procedure
and orders of the Court.30 	All Court filings requesting relief or requesting that the
Court make a ruling or take an action of any kind must be in the form of a pleading
or motion, with an appropriate caption designating the name of the pleading or
motion. The Court will not consider requests made in the form of letters or notices.
“The purpose of the court system is not, after all, to provide a forum for storytelling
or political griping, but to resolve legal disputes.”
Privacy
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 5.2 addresses the privacy and security
concerns over public access to court files. 	Under this rule, papers filed with the
court should not contain anyone’s full social-security number or full birth date; the
name of a person known to be a minor; or a complete financial-account number.
The Court will not review filed documents for compliance with privacy or other
protective law, nor will the Court as a matter of course seal documents containing
personal data identifiers or redact documents. Any future filings may include only
the last four digits of a social-security number and taxpayer identification number;
30 Motoyama v. Hawaii, Dept. of Transp., 864 F. Supp. 2d 965, 976 (D. Haw. 2012); see also King
v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987), overruled on other grounds by Lacey v. Maricopa
Cty., 693 F.3d 896 (9th Cir. 2012) (establishing self-represented litigants are bound by the same
procedural rules as represented parties).
Case 3:22-cv-00266-RRB Document 14 Filed 03/29/23 Page 8 of 11

Ohan v. Zion et al.
Order Dismissing Complaint with Leave to Amend
Page 9 of 11
the year of someone’s birth; a minor’s initials; and the last four digits of a financial-
account number.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1. 	The Complaint is DISMISSED. The Court grants leave to amend.
2. 	Plaintiff is accorded 30 days to file one of the following:
a. 	First Amended Complaint, in which Plaintiff restates his claims to
address 	the 	deficiencies 	identified 	in 	this 	order. 	An 	amended
complaint should be on the Court’s form, which is being provided to
Plaintiff with this order. 	An amended complaint replaces the prior
complaints in its entirety.31 	Plaintiff need not supply legal research,
only the facts that he alleges in support of an amended complaint.
Plaintiff must include all of the claims he seeks to bring in an amended
complaint. Any claims not included in the amended complaint will be
considered waived. Any exhibits attached to the amended complaint
should be submitted without alteration by Plaintiff; OR
b. 	Notice of Voluntary Dismissal, in which Plaintiff elects to close and
end this case.
3. 	At all times, Plaintiff must keep the Court informed of any change of address.
Such notice shall be titled “NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS.” 	This
notice must not include any requests for any other relief, and it must be
31 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 and Local Civil Rule 15.1.
Case 3:22-cv-00266-RRB Document 14 Filed 03/29/23 Page 9 of 11

Ohan v. Zion et al.
Order Dismissing Complaint with Leave to Amend
Page 10 of 11
served on any Defendant’s attorney who makes an appearance in this case.
Failure to file a notice of change of address may result in the dismissal of
this case under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure without
further notice to Plaintiff.
4. 	Aside from an Amended Complaint or a Notice of Change of Address, the
Court discourages the filing of other documents with the Court. 	The Court
cautions that filing unnecessary motions or attempts to serve other parties
without guidance from the Court may result in the summary denial of motions
without consideration, orders halting such actions, or delay in the litigation.
5. 	Any request for relief from judgment must be in the form of a motion and
must comply with the applicable Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the
Local Civil Rules for the District of Alaska.
6. 	Each litigant is responsible for keeping a copy of each document filed with
the Court. When a litigant mails a document to the Court, the Court will mail
to the litigant a Notice of Electronic Filing (“NEF”) that will indicate when that
document was filed on the docket and the docket number of the document.
Copies of documents that have been filed with the Court may be obtained
from 	the 	Clerk’s 	Office 	for 	$0.50 	per 	page. 	In 	the 	event 	of 	special
circumstances or serious financial need, a party may file a motion asking for
the cost of copies to be waived or reduced.
Case 3:22-cv-00266-RRB Document 14 Filed 03/29/23 Page 10 of 11

Ohan v. Zion et al.
Order Dismissing Complaint with Leave to Amend
Page 11 of 11
7. 	The Clerk of Court is directed to send Plaintiff the following forms with this
order: 	(1) Complaint Form for a Civil Case; (2) form PS09, Notice of
Voluntary Dismissal; (3) form PS23, Notice of Change of Address; and
(4) the 	District 	Court’s 	handbook, 	“Representing 	Yourself 	in 	Alaska’s
Federal Court.”
DATED this 29th day of March, 2023, at Anchorage, Alaska.
/s/ Ralph R. Beistline
RALPH R. BEISTLINE
Senior United States District Judge
Case 3:22-cv-00266-RRB Document 14 Filed 03/29/23 Page 11 of 11