Kotevski v. Patel et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION
KOTEVSKI,
Plaintiff,
v.
PATEL et al,
Defendants.
RESTRICTED FILER CASE REVIEW
ORDER
Case No. 2:25-cv-00952-JNP-CMR
Chief District Judge Jill N. Parrish
Magistrate Judge Cecilia M. Romero
Plaintiff Milan Michael Kotevski (Plaintiff or Mr. Kotevski) was placed on filing
restrictions by the court on September 17, 2025.1 The following filing restrictions were imposed
upon Mr. Kotevski for future filings with this court in any matter in which he proceeds pro se and
without paying a filing fee, or requesting leave to proceed in forma pauperis:
1. 	Any new civil complaint Mr. Kotevski submits to this court will be collected
by the Clerk of the Court and sent to a Magistrate Judge for review.
2. 	The Magistrate Judge will then review the complaint to determine whether
it is meritorious and should be filed, or whether it is meritless, duplicative,
or frivolous.
3. 	If 	the 	Magistrate 	Judge 	determines 	that 	the 	complaint 	is 	meritless,
duplicative, or frivolous, the Magistrate Judge will forward the complaint
to the Chief District Judge for further review.
4. 	Only with the Chief District Judge’s consent will the complaint be filed.
5. 	Mr. Kotevski’s pleadings must be certified as provided in Fed. R. Civ. P.
11.
Consistent with these requirements, the clerk forwarded Mr. Kotevski’s Complaint (ECF
1) in this matter to the undersigned magistrate judge for review to determine whether it is meritless,
1 See Kotevski v. Walton, Case No. 4:25-cv-00086, Doc. No. 35.
Case 2:25-cv-00952-JNP Document 7 Filed 01/07/26 PageID.<pageID> Page 1
of 6

2
duplicative, malicious, or frivolous. After reviewing Mr. Kotevski’s Complaint and the attached
documents, the court finds that the Complaint asserts no arguable claims, as the alleged facts
supporting the Complaint are fantastic, delusional, and baseless.
A complaint is frivolous where “it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Tucker
v. U.S. Ct. of App. for the Tenth Cir., 815 F. App’x 292, 293 (10th Cir. May 19, 2020)
(unpublished) (quoting Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989)). The term “frivolous” refers
to “the inarguable legal conclusion” and “the fanciful factual allegation.” Hall v. Bellmon, 935
F.2d 1106, 1108 (10th Cir. 1991) (quoting Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 325). Inarguable legal theories
include “those alleging an infringement of a legal interest that clearly does not exist” and claims
whose factual contentions are clearly baseless.” Id. at 1109 (citing Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327).
“Clearly baseless factual allegations are those that are ‘fantastic’ or ‘delusional.’” Id. (quoting
Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327–28).
In contrast, “plausible” factual allegations, even if they lack evidentiary support, are not
“frivolous” regardless of whether “[the claim] is based on an outlandish legal theory or on a close
but ultimately unavailing one.” Id. at 1108–9 (quoting Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327). A plausible claim
includes “facts from which the court may reasonably infer Defendant’s liability.” See Brooks v.
Mentor Worldwide LLC, 985 F.3d 1272, 1281 (10th Cir. 2021) (citing Brown v. Montoya, 662
F.3d 1152, 1162-63 (10th Cir. 2011). It is improper to dismiss a plausible claim based on
frivolousness; instead, plausible claims should be dismissed for failure to state a claim under Rule
12(b)(6). See Hall, 935 F.2d at 1109 (10th Cir. 1991).
Put simply, plausible claims consist of facts that could support a legal claim and are
dismissed if they do not satisfy Rule 12(b)(6) pleading standards. Conversely, frivolous claims are
fundamentally unarguable because the facts presented are either fantastic, delusional, or baseless,
Case 2:25-cv-00952-JNP Document 7 Filed 01/07/26 PageID.<pageID> Page 2
of 6

3
making them incapable of supporting any legal action. Thus, the main determination is whether
the facts in Mr. Kotevski’s Complaint are so fanciful, delusional, and or baseless that they could
not form the basis of any legal action.
Mr. Kotevski’s Complaint is divided into two sections. Section one deals with the alleged
poisoning of his dog, Kawaii (ECF 1 at 1–33), and section two deals with Mr. Kotevski’s alleged
slavery (ECF 1 at 33–37). Plaintiff seeks to be freed from slavery, and a court order compelling
Defendants2 to pay $13,500 to the Eye Care for Animal Facility in Las Vegas for Kawaii’s eye
surgery (ECF 1 at 37–38). Despite the court’s liberal reading of Mr. Kotevski’s Complaint, the
court finds that the Complaint states no arguable claims for relief and is therefore frivolous.
I. 	Section I: Poisoning of Kawaii
In Section 1 of the Complaint, Mr. Kotevski asserts Defendants intentionally conspired
against him to poison his dog, Kawaii (ECF 1 at 2-3). As a result of the alleged poisoning, Kawaii
now has glaucoma, which requires her to undergo emergency surgery to preserve her eyesight
(id.). Mr. Kotevski provides the following factual assertions to support his claim.
First and foremost, Mr. Kotevski asserts Defendants are all part of a “corrupt coverup” or
“RICO Enterprise” and are working against Mr. Kotevski because of his various lawsuits against
Defendants (id. at 5–7). As part of this “corrupt coverup”, Defendants bribed an unknown
conspirator to poison Kawaii (id. at 12). Defendants also allegedly bribed staff at Southwest
Animal Emergency Clinic (the clinic where Mr. Kotevski took Kawaii after the alleged poisoning)
to lie about Kawaii’s condition to disprove any allegation of poisoning (id. at 16). Mr. Kotevski
2 Mr. Kotevski brings this action against: Kash Patel, Dan Bongino, John Ratcliffe, Pam Bondi, Vanita Gupta, Lisa
Monaco, Merrick Garland, Michael Ellis, Dustin J. Gard-Weiss, Pete Hegseth, Tulsi Gabbard, William J. Hartman,
Sheila Thomas, Joseph Francescon, Christine Roman, Maj. Gen. Matteo Martemucci, Cmsgt Kenneth M. Bruce, Jr.,
Tricia Mclaughlin, Kristi Noem, Troy Edgar, Christopher C. Pratt, Joseph N. Mazzara, Benjamine C. Huffman, Ben
Netanyahu, Todd M. Lyons, Mossad, 5 Eyes, and the DOJ, FBI, CIA, NSA, and IDF.
Case 2:25-cv-00952-JNP Document 7 Filed 01/07/26 PageID.<pageID> Page 3
of 6

4
claims that the staff from Southwest Animal Emergency Center confirmed that Kawaii’s file was
altered (id.). Lastly, Mr. Kotevski claims that Kawaii’s glaucoma is not natural, as it began to
develop after the alleged poisoning, and that Chris Smith, a licensed veterinarian, has affirmed Mr.
Kotevski’s observations (id. at 20-21).
As a result of the alleged poisoning, Mr. Kotevski claims he has causes of action under 42
U.S.C. § 1983, 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3), 18 U.S.C. § 1962(D), 18 U.S.C. § 242, the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. § 1986, and for
violation of his rights under the First, Fifth, and Eighth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution (id.
at 5, 13, and 23).
Although Plaintiff’s Complaint asserts the above-mentioned constitutional and statutory
violations, the court finds it unnecessary to address how Plaintiff has failed to plead the required
elements for each cause of action. This is because Plaintiff’s facts in support of these causes of
action are fantastic, delusional, and or baseless. Even liberally construing the facts discussed in
the Complaint, the facts are so fantastic and delusional that they could be asserted against virtually
anyone if Plaintiff believes they are part of the supposed conspiracy against him.
In short, Plaintiff’s assertion that officials from the US, Israel, Great Britain, and India are
secretly conspiring against him due to his lawsuits is a prime example of unfounded and fantastical
allegations, which are so baseless that they cannot support any legal claim. Although it is apparent
that Kawaii’s condition is distressing to Mr. Kotevski, the court finds that Section I of Mr.
Kotevski’s Complaint states no arguable claim for relief because the factual support consists of
baseless assertions that contain nothing more than fanciful and fantastic allegations.
Case 2:25-cv-00952-JNP Document 7 Filed 01/07/26 PageID.<pageID> Page 4
of 6

5
II. 	Section II: Plaintiff’s Slavery
In Section II of Mr. Kotevski’s Complaint, he asserts that on January 9, 2024, Judge Jenkins
indefinitely enslaved him (ECF 1 at 34). Plaintiff provides no coherent factual or legal support for
his “enslavement”, but rather, uses most of this section to express his frustration towards specific
individuals. Accordingly, Section II of Kotevski’s Complaint is meritless. See United States ex rel.
Brooks v. Stevens-Henager Coll., 305 F. Supp. 3d 1279, 1307 (D. Utah 2018) (“Something labeled
a complaint but written more as a press release, prolix in evidentiary detail, yet without simplicity,
conciseness, and clarity as to whom plaintiffs are suing for what wrongs, fails to perform the
essential functions of a complaint.”) (quoting Mann v. Boatright, 477 F.3d 1140, 1148 (10th Cir.
2007)).
For these reasons, Mr. Kotevski’s Complaint should not be accepted for filing and should
be returned to him unfiled. Accordingly, I hereby forward Mr. Kotevski’s Complaint and related
submissions to the Chief District Judge for review.
DATED this 8 December 2025.
Magistrate Judge Cecilia M. Romero
United States District Court for the District of Utah
Case 2:25-cv-00952-JNP Document 7 Filed 01/07/26 PageID.<pageID> Page 5
of 6

6
Upon final review, the undersigned concurs with the magistrate judge’s analysis and order
that the materials Mr. Kotevski has submitted in this matter be returned to him unfiled. Any filing
fee associated with Mr. Kotevski’s filing in this matter shall be returned to him.
DATED this ____ day of _______________, 2025.
BY THE COURT:
________________________________________
Jill N. Parrish
Chief United States District Judge
Case 2:25-cv-00952-JNP Document 7 Filed 01/07/26 PageID.<pageID> Page 6
of 6