Akouala v. AGU Logistic et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA (EASTERN DIVISION)
Christian Akouala,
Plaintiff,
v.
A.G.U. Logistick, Mac Schneider, Judge
Hochhalter, Christina Rudy, Court of Works.
Comp., U.S. Marshal ND, U.S. Marshal MN,
and U.S. Marshal OK,
Defendants.
Civil No. 3:24-cv-0012 (NEB/DJF)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Christian Akouala’s Complaint (ECF No. 1-11).
For the following reasons, the Court recommends dismissing this action as frivolous.
This action commenced on January 22, 2024, when Mr. Akouala filed the Complaint in the
U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota. (See ECF No. 1-1.) The Complaint appears
to name six defendants: (1) “A.G.U. Logistick,” which the Court construes as referring to the
Colorado corporation AGU Logistics Inc.; (2) Mac Schneider, presumably referring to the U.S.
Attorney for the District of North Dakota; (3) “Judge Hochhalter,” presumably referring to U.S.
Magistrate Judge Clare R. Hochhalter; (4) Christina Rudy, who is not further identified; (5) “Court
of Works. Comp,” which appears to refer to the Colorado Division of Workers’ Compensation;
and (6) “U.S. Marshal ND,” “U.S. Marshal MN,” and “U.S. Marshal OK”, which the Court
1 On March 19, 2024, the Honorable Steven M. Colloton, Chief Judge of the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, designated and assigned this matter to U.S. District Judge Nancy
J. Brasel. (ECF No. 11.) On March 28, 2024, Judge Brasel appointed the undersigned to this case.
(See ECF No. 12.)
Case 3:24-cv-00012-NB-DJF Document 13 Filed 04/11/24 Page 1 of 3

2
construes as referring collectively to the U.S. Marshals Service. (See Compl. 1–2.2) The
Complaint is hard to follow, but Mr. Akouala appears to complain of various problems he is having
in civil and criminal proceedings in at least two different states. (See id. at 3–4.)
In lieu of paying a filing fee, Mr. Akouala sought permission to proceed in forma pauperis
(“IFP”) in this matter. (ECF No. 1.) U.S. Magistrate Judge Alice R. Senechal granted Mr.
Akouala’s request. (ECF No. 3.) Under the federal statute governing federal court matters
proceeding IFP, however, “[n]otwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have
been paid, the court shall dismiss [a case proceeding IFP] at any time if the court determines
that … the action … is frivolous[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). A case is frivolous when “it lacks
an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); see also,
e.g., Jones v. Norris, 310 F.3d 610, 612 (8th Cir. 2002) (citing Neitzke). “When a complaint lacks
any allegations explaining what a given defendant did that creates legal liability, the complaint
lacks an arguable basis in fact as to that defendant.” Swenson v. Hable, No. 21-cv-1011 (SRN/HB),
2021 WL 34767200, at *2 (D. Minn. July 15, 2021) (citing cases), report and recommendation
adopted, 2021 WL 3472694 (D. Minn. Aug. 6, 2021).
As presently pleaded, Mr. Akouala’s Complaint is factually frivolous because he provides
no specific factual allegations about any particular Defendant. (See ECF No. 1-1 at 3-4.) Mr.
Akouala makes only vague accusations against no specific Defendant. (See id.) The Court cannot
determine which Defendant did what, or what cause of action each is supposedly responsible for.
The Court therefore recommends dismissing this action without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915
as frivolous.
2 For ease of reference the Court uses the CM/ECF pagination to cite documents.
Case 3:24-cv-00012-NB-DJF Document 13 Filed 04/11/24 Page 2 of 3

3
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the foregoing, and on all of the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS
HEREBY RECOMMENDED THAT Plaintiff Christian Akouala’s Complaint (ECF No. [1-1]),
be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) as frivolous.
Dated: April 11, 2024 s/ Dulce J. Foster
DULCE J. FOSTER
United States Magistrate Judge
NOTICE
Filing Objections: This Report and Recommendation is not an order or judgment of the District
Court and is therefore not appealable directly to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Under Local Rule 72.2(b)(1), “a party may file and serve specific written objections to a magistrate
judge’s proposed finding and recommendations within 14 days after being served a copy” of the
Report and Recommendation. A party may respond to those objections within 14 days after being
served a copy of the objections. See Local Rule 72.2(b)(2). All objections and responses must
comply with the word or line limits set forth in Local Rule 72.2(c).
Case 3:24-cv-00012-NB-DJF Document 13 Filed 04/11/24 Page 3 of 3