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), MICROSOFT
CORPORATION, APPLE
CORPORATION, GOOGLE
CORPORATION,
GOVERNMENT OF EGYPT,
GOVERNMENT OF THE
REPUBLIC OF NORTH
MACEDONIA, GOVERNMENT
OF SERBIA, GOVERNMENT
OF THE REPUBLIC OF
CROATIA, GOVERNMENT OF
MONTENEGRO,
GOVERNMENT OF THE
REPUBLIC OF SLOVENIA,
MINISTRY OF INTERIOR,
MINISTRY OF INTERIOR
KOCANI, INTERPOL
GENERAL SECRETARIAT,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CIVIL NO. 26-00005 SASP-WRP
FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATION TO (1)
DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINT
WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND
AND (2) DENY APPLICATION TO
PROCEED WITHOUT PAYMENT
OF FEES OR COSTS
Case 1:26-cv-00005-SASP-WRP Document 16 Filed 06/26/26 Page 1 of 8
PageID.<pageID>

2
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO (1) DISMISS AMENDED
COMPLAINT WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND AND (2) DENY
APPLICATION TO PROCEED WITHOUT PREPAYMENT OF FEES OR
COSTS
The Court previously recommended dismissal of pro se Plaintiff
Milan Kjalasan’s (Plaintiff) Complaint and denial of Plaintiff’s first request to
proceed in forma pauperis. See 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, ECF No. 10. The Court nevertheless
recommended granting Plaintiff leave to cure the deficiencies in the Complaint by
filing an amended complaint. See id. The Court’s recommendations were adopted
on April 2, 2026. See Order Adopting Magistrate Judge's Findings and
Recommendation, ECF No. 11.
On May 6, 2026, Plaintiff filed the Amended Complaint, which names
numerous Defendants, including the United States Government, federal agencies,
private corporations, and various foreign nations.1 Amended Complaint, ECF No.
1 The Amended Complaint names the following Defendants: United States
Government, United States Intelligence Community, Federal Bureau Of
Investigation, Department of Homeland Security, Microsoft Corporation, Apple
Corporation, Google Corporation, Government of Egypt, Government of the
Republic of North Macedonia, Government of Serbia, Government of the Republic
of Croatia, Government of Montenegro, Government of the Republic of Slovenia,
Ministry of Interior, Ministry of Interior Kocani, and Interpol General. See ECF
No. 14.
Case 1:26-cv-00005-SASP-WRP Document 16 Filed 06/26/26 Page 2 of 8
PageID.<pageID>

3
14. Plaintiff also filed an Application to Proceed in District Court Without
Prepaying Fees or Costs (Application). See Application, ECF No. 15. For the
reasons stated below, the Court FINDS and RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s
Complaint be DISMISSED without leave to amend and that Plaintiff’s Application
be DENIED as moot.2
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
2 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 16 Filed 06/26/26 Page 3 of 8
PageID.<pageID>

4
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
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) (quoting Bell Atl. 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,
Case 1:26-cv-00005-SASP-WRP Document 16 Filed 06/26/26 Page 4 of 8
PageID.<pageID>

5
violates Rule 8.” Id. (ellipses and citations omitted).
Here, the Amended Complaint makes general statements about
Plaintiff’s past experiences, but it is entirely unclear from the Amended Complaint
what misconduct is alleged, who specifically is alleged to have committed it, when
any such conduct occurred, or what claims are asserted based on that conduct. See
Tamayo v. City of Glendale, No. 2:19-cv-10284-ODW(SK), 2020 WL 136633, at
*1 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2020) (explaining that the complaint violated Rule 8 because
it failed “to allege the basic who, what, when, where, and why” of the plaintiff’s
claims).
For example, the Amended Complaint mentions “Organized Crime of
Socially-Political Oligarchic Operating spanning the periods 1984 – 2009 and 2010
– 2016 . . . [that] are responsible for my Emotional and Physical Destruction[.]”
Amended Complaint, ECF No. 14 at 4. Plaintiff also alleges “the Intimate Use of
the ‘SUNSHINE’ element expressed towards me” and “[t]he use of Biological
Methods of provoking and hurting for the purpose of Information Extortion
through Duress . . . [including] Controlled Infestations of Insects and Dispatch of
Dangerous Animals that can seriously harm or even kill you.” Id. at 12, 21.
Plaintiff also asserts “Biochemical and Electromagnetic Crimes based upon
Political, Economic, Cultural, Social, and Civil Engineering enriching the
Corrupted Segment of the American and Foreign Oligarchy and its Corrupt
Case 1:26-cv-00005-SASP-WRP Document 16 Filed 06/26/26 Page 5 of 8
PageID.<pageID>

6
Partners[.]” Id. at 23. Plaintiff claims that he “ended up Biochemically and
Electromagnetically Damaged to the extent I could not handle anymore[.]” Id. at
6. Thus, Plaintiff seeks “$1,000,000,000 (one billion dollars) Financial
Compensation to be paid to me by the United States and other Nations’
Governments and Corporations involved in the Oligarchic Crimes[.]” Id. at 5.
Based on a thorough review of the Amended Complaint, the Court
finds that the Amended Complaint fails to comply with FRCP Rule 8(a)(2) and
“leaves 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., 550 U.S. at 556). For
these reasons, the Court recommends that Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint be
DISMISSED without prejudice.
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, the
Court previously identified the same deficiencies in the original Complaint and
-- --- -------
Case 1:26-cv-00005-SASP-WRP Document 16 Filed 06/26/26 Page 6 of 8
PageID.<pageID>

7
afforded Plaintiff an opportunity to cure them. See Findings and
Recommendation, ECF No. 10; Order Adopting, ECF No. 11. Plaintiff’s
Amended Complaint adds numerous Defendants and allegations, but fares no
better. Given the allegations stated in the original Complaint and the Amended
Complaint and considering that Plaintiff was unable to cure the same deficiencies
that were previously identified, the Court finds that further amendment would be
futile. Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that the Amended Complaint be
dismissed without leave to amend.
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 without leave to amend, it also FINDS and RECOMMENDS that
Plaintiff’s Application, ECF No. 15, be DENIED as moot.
CONCLUSION
The Court FINDS and RECOMMENDS that the District Court:
• 	DISMISS the Amended Complaint, ECF No. 14, without prejudice and
without leave to amend,
• 	DENY the Application, ECF No. 15, as moot, and
• 	CLOSE this case.
Case 1:26-cv-00005-SASP-WRP Document 16 Filed 06/26/26 Page 7 of 8
PageID.<pageID>

8
IT IS SO FOUND AND RECOMMENDED.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, June 25, 2026.
Milan Kjalasan v. United States Government, et al., Civ. No. 26-00005 SASP-WRP;
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO (1) DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINT
WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND AND (2) DENY APPLICATION TO PROCEED
WITHOUT PREPAYMENT OF FEES OR COSTS.
Case 1:26-cv-00005-SASP-WRP Document 16 Filed 06/26/26 Page 8 of 8
PageID.<pageID>