Kjalasan v. United States Government et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
MILAN KJALASAN,
Plaintiff,
vs.
UNITED STATES
GOVERNMENT, UNITED
STATES INTELLIGENCE
COMMUNITY, FEDERAL
BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
(FBI), DEPARTMENT OF
HOMELAND SECURITY
(DHS),
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CIVIL NO. 26-00005 SASP-WRP
FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATION TO (1)
DISMISS COMPLAINT WITH
LEAVE TO AMEND AND (2) DENY
APPLICATION TO PROCEED
WITHOUT PAYMENT OF FEES OR
COSTS AS MOOT
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO (1) DISMISS COMPLAINT WITH
LEAVE TO AMEND AND (2) DENY APPLICATION TO PROCEED
WITHOUT PREPAYMENT OF FEES OR COSTS AS MOOT
On January 9, 2026, Plaintiff Milan Kjalasan (Plaintiff), proceeding
without counsel, filed a complaint (Complaint) against Defendants “United States
Government, United States Intelligence Community, Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI), and Department of Homeland Security (DHS).” See
Complaint, ECF No. 1. Plaintiff also filed an Application to Proceed in District
Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Application). See Application, ECF No.
3. For the reasons stated below, the Court FINDS and RECOMMENDS that
Case 1:26-cv-00005-SASP-WRP Document 10 Filed 02/11/26 Page 1 of 8
PageID.<pageID>

2
Plaintiff’s Complaint be DISMISSED with leave to amend and that Plaintiff’s
Application be DENIED as moot.1
I. 	Screening
The Court must subject each civil action commenced pursuant to
Section 1915(a) to mandatory screening and order the dismissal of any claim that it
finds frivolous, malicious, failing to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted, or seeking monetary relief from a defendant immune from such relief.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir.
2000) (stating that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) “not only permits but requires” the court to
dismiss [a § 1915(a)] complaint that fails to state a claim). Additionally, the Court
liberally construes a pro se complaint. See Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1137
(9th Cir. 1987). However, the Court cannot act as counsel for a pro se litigant,
such as by supplying the essential elements of a claim. See Pliler v. Ford, 542 U.S.
225, 231 (2004); Ivey v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th
Cir. 1982).
According to Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
(FRCP), to state a claim for relief, a pleading must contain “a short and plain
1 Within fourteen days after a party is served with the Findings and
Recommendation, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), a party may file written
objections in the United States District Court. A party must file any objections
within the fourteen-day period to preserve appellate review of the Findings and
Recommendation.
Case 1:26-cv-00005-SASP-WRP Document 10 Filed 02/11/26 Page 2 of 8
PageID.<pageID>

3
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ.
P. 8(a)(2). To satisfy this rule, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (“[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual
matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”)
(quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)) (quotation
marks omitted). Importantly, conclusions of law are insufficient to state a claim
under Rule 8(a). See id. “Therefore, to survive in federal court, a complaint must
contain specific factual allegations in support of the legal conclusions. See id. at
679 (“While legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they
must be supported by factual allegations.”).
Moreover, “[t]o comply with Rule 8(a)(2), a plaintiff suing multiple
defendants ‘must allege the basis of his claims against each defendant[.]’” Tamraz
v. Bakotic Pathology Assocs., LLC, No. 22-CV-0725-BAS-WVG, 2022 WL
16985001, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 16, 2022) (quotation marks and citations omitted).
“Put differently, a pleading that names multiple defendants must ‘establish the
specific personal involvement’ of each defendant ‘in the alleged wrongful acts.’”
Id. (citations omitted). “Failure to do so ‘leaves each defendant with no means of
determining exactly what each of them is charged with doing,’ and, therefore,
violates Rule 8.” Id. (ellipses points and citations omitted).
Case 1:26-cv-00005-SASP-WRP Document 10 Filed 02/11/26 Page 3 of 8
PageID.<pageID>

4
The Complaint’s fatal defect is that it does not include sufficient
factual allegations for the Court to discern the substance of Plaintiff’s action.
Regarding the date and time of the alleged events giving rise to his claim, Plaintiff
states that “there are too many events to be enlisted here, but they are documented
and will be delivered to you via email (there are around 5000 pages written
materials [sic] and thousands of other data).” See Complaint, ECF No. 1 at 4.
Regarding the facts underlying the claim, Plaintiff states “I am talking about
organized governmental crime involving and implicating . . . many federal
agencies belonging to the United States Intelligence Community and their foreign
partners abroad, which is covered throughout the aforementioned 5000 pages and
thousands of other data.” See id.
The only conceivable factual allegations are included in the “Injuries”
and “Relief” sections of the Complaint.2 See id. at 5. The “Injuries” section of the
Complaint states that Plaintiff sustained a “biochemically damaged right hip after
being enforced to take ‘TBC’ test [sic] injection in the Henderson Jail . . . where
[he] was placed after unlawfull [sic] arrest[.]” Id. (quotations omitted). This
section also mentions “collateral murders of more than 90% of the people for
2 Plaintiff also includes five attachments to his Complaint, each which contain
various pictures, screenshots, emails, and social media posts. See ECF Nos. 1-1, 1-
2, 1-3, 1-4, 1-5. These attachments, however, provide the Court with no
discernable factual allegations.
Case 1:26-cv-00005-SASP-WRP Document 10 Filed 02/11/26 Page 4 of 8
PageID.<pageID>

5
whom I alerted before they were killed[.]” Id. The “relief” section mentions “the
biochemically caused death of my 1st wife, father, mother, grandmother, and
everyone else who died after I was threatened following my releasing and alerting
of the COVID-19 information delivered to me[.]” Id.
These minimal facts are insufficient to satisfy FRCP Rule 8(a)(2) and
“leave[] each defendant with no means of determining exactly what each of them is
charged with doing.” See Tamraz, 2022 WL 16985001, at *2; see also Ashcroft,
556 U.S. at 678 (“A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual
content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is
liable for the misconduct alleged.”) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 556 (2007)). Further, a promise to email the Court in lieu of including factual
allegations in the Complaint fails to comply with FRCP Rule 8(a)(2) which
requires that the “complaint . . . contain sufficient factual matter . . . to state a claim
to relief that is plausible on its face.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (emphasis added).
Additionally, the Complaint does not clearly identify which claims Plaintiff is
bringing and against which defendants.
For these reasons, the Court FINDS that Plaintiff’s Complaint is
inadequate under the pleading standard of FRCP Rule 8(a)(2). The Court therefore
FINDS and RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s Complaint be DISMISSED without
prejudice.
----- -------
Case 1:26-cv-00005-SASP-WRP Document 10 Filed 02/11/26 Page 5 of 8
PageID.<pageID>

6
As to whether leave to amend the Complaint should be permitted, the
Ninth Circuit has explained that, “[u]nless 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.” Lucas
v. Dep’t of Corr., 66 F.3d 245, 248 (9th Cir. 1995) (citations omitted). Here,
arguably, Plaintiff may be able to cure some of the deficiencies in the Complaint.
Therefore, the Court RECOMMENDS that he be permitted to file an amended
complaint.
If Plaintiff chooses file an amended complaint, he must write short,
plain statements telling the Court: (1) the specific basis of this Court’s jurisdiction
(i.e., diversity jurisdiction or federal question jurisdiction); (2) the right(s) he
believes were violated; (3) the name of the defendant(s) who violated those
right(s); (4) exactly what each defendant did or failed to do and when; (5) how the
action or inaction of that defendant is connected to the violation of Plaintiff’s
right(s); and (6) what specific injury he suffered because of each defendant’s
conduct. Any amended complaint shall cure the deficiencies noted above.
II. 	Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or
Costs
Insofar as this Court finds and recommends that Plaintiff’s Complaint
be dismissed with leave to amend, it also FINDS and RECOMMENDS that
Plaintiff’s Application be DENIED without prejudice as moot. If Plaintiff timely
Case 1:26-cv-00005-SASP-WRP Document 10 Filed 02/11/26 Page 6 of 8
PageID.<pageID>

7
files an amended complaint, he shall concurrently file a new application to proceed
without prepayment of costs or pay the filing fee. Plaintiff’s amended complaint
and new application or filing fee are due within 45 days from the date the district
court acts on this Findings and Recommendation. Failure to file an amended
complaint and new application or payment of the filing fee by this deadline will
result in automatic dismissal of this case.
CONCLUSION
The Court FINDS and RECOMMENDS that the district court
• 	DISMISS the Complaint, ECF No. 1, with leave to file an amended
complaint within 45 days from the date the district court acts on this
Findings and Recommendation,
• 	DENY the Application, ECF No. 3, as moot,
• 	ORDER Plaintiff to file a completed application to proceed without
prepayment of costs or pay the filing fee contemporaneously with the filing
of the amended complaint, and
• 	CAUTION Plaintiff that failure to file an amended complaint with an
application to proceed without prepayment of costs or payment of the filing
fee within the time frame specified above will result in the automatic
dismissal of this action.
IT IS SO FOUND AND RECOMMENDED.
Case 1:26-cv-00005-SASP-WRP Document 10 Filed 02/11/26 Page 7 of 8
PageID.<pageID>

8
DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, February 11, 2026.
Milan Kjalasan v. United States Government, et al., Civ. No. 26-00005 SASP-WRP;
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO (1) DISMISS COMPLAINT WITH
LEAVE TO AMEND AND (2) DENY APPLICATION TO PROCEED WITHOUT
PREPAYMENT OF FEES OR COSTS AS MOOT.
Case 1:26-cv-00005-SASP-WRP Document 10 Filed 02/11/26 Page 8 of 8
PageID.<pageID>