Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Plaintiff Milan Kjalasan, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a complaint on August 13, 2026, naming 25 defendants including the United States Government, the Intelligence Community, the CIA, DHS, FBI, multiple foreign governments (China, Germany, Egypt, North Macedonia, Serbia, Croatia, Montenegro, Slovenia), INTERPOL, various ministries of interior, federal courts in Nevada and Hawaii, the European Broadcasting Union, WHO, CDC, Microsoft, Apple, Google, and ‘Undercover Staff’ of multiple states.
The complaint alleges a decades-long ‘Organized Crime of Socially-Political Engineering’ by ‘Corrupt Segments’ of these entities spanning 1984–2026, claiming responsibility for the plaintiff’s emotional and physical destruction, the deaths of numerous relatives and friends, ‘Biochemical Sickening and Timed Killing,’ and the engineering of the COVID-19 pandemic for financial enrichment.
Kjalasan seeks $1 billion in damages and a jury trial before a ‘Competent and Politically Independent Judge.’ Between August 26 and October 5, 2026, Kjalasan filed nine motions to extend or supplement the complaint (Dkt.
Nos. 10–18), adding hundreds of pages of allegations, photographs of dead birds and San Francisco locations, and exhibits regarding the COVID-19 pandemic.
The court denied without prejudice a motion to relate this case to a companion case (26-cv-08419-JCS) involving different defendants and intellectual property allegations.
The Court’s Holding
The court ordered Kjalasan to show cause by November 4, 2026, why the complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a cognizable claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2).
The court found the complaint and all nine supplements fail to identify any particular legal claims or link specific conduct by any of the 25 named defendants to those claims.
The allegations are described as ‘wide-ranging’ and ‘voluminous’ but devoid of the ‘short and plain statement’ required by Rule 8, rendering the court unable to discern any plausible claim for relief.
The court vacated the Case Management Conference set for November 18, 2026.
Kjalasan may file an amended complaint that fully complies with Rule 8—including all facts, claims, and defendants without incorporation by reference—or a written response addressing the sufficiency of the current pleading.
Failure to respond will result in reassignment to a district judge with a recommendation of dismissal.
The court provided contact information for the Federal Pro Bono Project’s Legal Help Center.
Key Takeaways
- A pro se, in forma pauperis complaint must still satisfy Rule 8’s requirement of a ‘short and plain statement’ showing entitlement to relief; voluminous, conclusory allegations against numerous defendants without specific factual linkages are insufficient.
- Courts screen IFP complaints under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) for failure to state a claim, frivolousness, or immunity, applying the plausibility standard of Twombly and Iqbal even with liberal construction for pro se litigants.
- Leave to amend is generally required for pro se plaintiffs unless amendment would be futile; here the court identified the deficiency (failure to state specific claims against specific defendants) and gave a concrete deadline to cure it.
- Motions to supplement or extend a complaint do not cure fundamental pleading defects if they merely add more undifferentiated allegations without clarifying the claims or each defendant’s role.
- The court denied a motion to relate cases without prejudice where the companion case involved different defendants and distinct factual allegations (intellectual property theft vs. political engineering/biochemical attacks).
Why It Matters
This order illustrates the application of mandatory screening under § 1915(e)(2)(B) to a sprawling, multi-defendant pro se complaint alleging a vast international conspiracy.
It reinforces that liberal construction of pro se pleadings does not relieve a plaintiff of the obligation to provide defendants with fair notice of the claims against them and the factual basis for each claim.
The decision serves as a procedural checkpoint: the court has not dismissed the case but has identified the precise pleading deficiency—failure to articulate cognizable claims tied to specific conduct by specific defendants—and afforded a final opportunity to amend.
The ruling also highlights the case-management challenges posed by serial, voluminous supplements that expand the record without clarifying the legal theory.