1 2 3 6 EUGENE HART, 7 Case No. 26-cv-02481-JCS Plaintiff, 8 v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE LYNETTE LEWIS, 10 Defendant. 11
12 14 Plaintiff Eugene Hart, pro se, applied to proceed in forma pauperis and the Court granted 15 his application. See Docket No. 4. The Court now reviews the sufficiency of Plaintiff’s complaint 16 to determine whether it satisfies 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Because the complaint does not 17 plausibly state a claim, Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why the complaint should not 18 be dismissed. 20 In his complaint, Plaintiff alleges that he resides in San Francisco, California. Compl at 1. 21 He has named Lynette Lewis, of Antioch, California as a defendant, and invokes both federal 22 question jurisdiction and diversity jurisdiction. Id. at 2. He identifies the federal law at issue in 23 the case as “ ‘Mens Rea Law’ ‘Civil Rights.’ ” Id. at 2, 5. Plaintiff’s allegations are largely 24 incomprehensible. He alleges in the Statement of Facts, for example: 25 The Facts of the case is that there wasn’t never a real direct contract for the person in whom the contract is assumed for, in the city of S.F., 26 dating as far back as 2003. When is all involved seems to change from different people which makes it impossible for any one person to 27 know with the fact of not moving locations in the pass [sic] 20 pus accurate in having two or more government backed sources to 1 confirm the stories being told and allege [sic]. It’s either true or false. It’s abusive and unfair tactics. But that’s all you can go off of is what 2 is being told @ the time. 3 Id. at 3. The Statement of Facts continues to discuss an unidentified “Contract,” alleging that 4 “[t]he Contract is a ‘Breach’ and invasion of privacy and a tail on unlawful control over others for 5 the Benefits for someone elses [sic] decision of you.” Id. at 4. 6 As to the named defendant, Plaintiff alleges that “ ‘Lynette Lewis’ is connected to the 7 many things that’s considered under the ‘fictitious Business Names’ for example ‘Lynette Calfani- 8 Fox’ or ‘Deloitte’ Company which is contracts, that would be now seen as an ‘Breach of 9 Contract.’” Id. at 4. Plaintiff further alleges that Lynette Lewis violated his civil rights because he 10 was “falsely accused of things [he] didn’t not [sic] do which allowed Ms. Lewis to assume to take 11 away [his] freedoms & right to life.” Id. at 6. 12 In his Demand for Relief, Plaintiff states that he “wants the Court to identify how the 13 personal info. is being collected and used” and to “disclose who the other people are so there is no 14 confusion of who the real and true sources of information is, if needed to identify for any authority 15 or auditor if questioned.” Id. He also seeks $3 billion in damages “for duplicative or copyrighted 16 purposes for infringement and unauthorized use of another[’]s ‘pii’ or ‘pi.’” Id. at 7. 18 A. Legal Standards Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and Rule 12(b)(6) 19 Where a plaintiff is found to be indigent under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and is granted leave 20 to proceed in forma pauperis, courts must engage in screening and dismiss any claims which: 21 (1) are frivolous or malicious; (2) fail to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (3) seek 22 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see 23 Marks v. Solcum, 98 F.3d 494, 495 (9th Cir. 1996). 24 To state a claim for relief, a plaintiff must make “a short and plain statement of the claim 25 showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Further, a claim may be 26 dismissed for “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); 27 see also Diaz v. Int’l Longshore and Warehouse Union, Local 13, 474 F.3d 1202, 1205 (9th Cir. 1 material fact in the complaint as true and construe[s] them in the light most favorable to the non- 2 moving party.” Cedars-Sinai Med. Ctr. v. Nat’l League of Postmasters of U.S., 497 F.3d 972, 975 3 (9th Cir. 2007). However, “the tenet that a court must accept a complaint’s allegations as true is 4 inapplicable to legal conclusions [and] mere conclusory statements,” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 5 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)), and courts “do not 6 necessarily assume the truth of legal conclusions merely because they are cast in the form of 7 factual allegations.” Coto Settlement v. Eisenberg, 593 F.3d 1031, 1034 (9th Cir. 2010) (internal 8 quotation marks omitted). The complaint need not contain “detailed factual allegations,” but must 9 allege facts sufficient to “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 678 (citing 10 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). 11 Where the complaint has been filed by a pro se plaintiff, courts must “construe the 12 pleadings liberally . . . to afford the petitioner the benefit of any doubt.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 13 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010). “A pro se litigant must be given leave to amend his or her complaint 14 unless it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies in the complaint could not be cured by 15 amendment.” Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987), superseded on other grounds 16 by statute, as recognized in Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). Further, 17 when it dismisses the complaint of a pro se litigant with leave to amend, “the district court must 18 provide the litigant with notice of the deficiencies in his complaint in order to ensure that the 19 litigant uses the opportunity to amend effectively.” Id. (quoting Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 20 1258, 1261 (9th Cir. 1992)). “Without the benefit of a statement of deficiencies, the pro se litigant 21 will likely repeat previous errors.” Karim-Panahi v. L.A. Police Dep’t, 839 F.2d 621, 624 (9th 22 Cir. 1988) (quoting Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987)). 23 B. Discussion 24 Even liberally construed, Plaintiff’s allegation do not state any viable claim. Plaintiff has 25 referred generally to his “civil rights” but he does not identify any specific statute or constitutional 26 right he contends has been violated. Nor has he identified the specific conduct on the part of the 27 named defendant (or anyone else) that is the basis for his claim. To the extent he may be asserting ] allegations about the nature of the contract or the breach is insufficient to state a claim.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 6 EUGENE HART, 7 Case No. 26-cv-02481-JCS Plaintiff, 8 v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE LYNETTE LEWIS, 10 Defendant. 11
12 14 Plaintiff Eugene Hart, pro se, applied to proceed in forma pauperis and the Court granted 15 his application. See Docket No. 4. The Court now reviews the sufficiency of Plaintiff’s complaint 16 to determine whether it satisfies 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Because the complaint does not 17 plausibly state a claim, Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why the complaint should not 18 be dismissed. 20 In his complaint, Plaintiff alleges that he resides in San Francisco, California. Compl at 1. 21 He has named Lynette Lewis, of Antioch, California as a defendant, and invokes both federal 22 question jurisdiction and diversity jurisdiction. Id. at 2. He identifies the federal law at issue in 23 the case as “ ‘Mens Rea Law’ ‘Civil Rights.’ ” Id. at 2, 5. Plaintiff’s allegations are largely 24 incomprehensible. He alleges in the Statement of Facts, for example: 25 The Facts of the case is that there wasn’t never a real direct contract for the person in whom the contract is assumed for, in the city of S.F., 26 dating as far back as 2003. When is all involved seems to change from different people which makes it impossible for any one person to 27 know with the fact of not moving locations in the pass [sic] 20 pus accurate in having two or more government backed sources to 1 confirm the stories being told and allege [sic]. It’s either true or false. It’s abusive and unfair tactics. But that’s all you can go off of is what 2 is being told @ the time. 3 Id. at 3. The Statement of Facts continues to discuss an unidentified “Contract,” alleging that 4 “[t]he Contract is a ‘Breach’ and invasion of privacy and a tail on unlawful control over others for 5 the Benefits for someone elses [sic] decision of you.” Id. at 4. 6 As to the named defendant, Plaintiff alleges that “ ‘Lynette Lewis’ is connected to the 7 many things that’s considered under the ‘fictitious Business Names’ for example ‘Lynette Calfani- 8 Fox’ or ‘Deloitte’ Company which is contracts, that would be now seen as an ‘Breach of 9 Contract.’” Id. at 4. Plaintiff further alleges that Lynette Lewis violated his civil rights because he 10 was “falsely accused of things [he] didn’t not [sic] do which allowed Ms. Lewis to assume to take 11 away [his] freedoms & right to life.” Id. at 6. 12 In his Demand for Relief, Plaintiff states that he “wants the Court to identify how the 13 personal info. is being collected and used” and to “disclose who the other people are so there is no 14 confusion of who the real and true sources of information is, if needed to identify for any authority 15 or auditor if questioned.” Id. He also seeks $3 billion in damages “for duplicative or copyrighted 16 purposes for infringement and unauthorized use of another[’]s ‘pii’ or ‘pi.’” Id. at 7. 18 A. Legal Standards Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and Rule 12(b)(6) 19 Where a plaintiff is found to be indigent under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and is granted leave 20 to proceed in forma pauperis, courts must engage in screening and dismiss any claims which: 21 (1) are frivolous or malicious; (2) fail to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (3) seek 22 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see 23 Marks v. Solcum, 98 F.3d 494, 495 (9th Cir. 1996). 24 To state a claim for relief, a plaintiff must make “a short and plain statement of the claim 25 showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Further, a claim may be 26 dismissed for “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); 27 see also Diaz v. Int’l Longshore and Warehouse Union, Local 13, 474 F.3d 1202, 1205 (9th Cir. 1 material fact in the complaint as true and construe[s] them in the light most favorable to the non- 2 moving party.” Cedars-Sinai Med. Ctr. v. Nat’l League of Postmasters of U.S., 497 F.3d 972, 975 3 (9th Cir. 2007). However, “the tenet that a court must accept a complaint’s allegations as true is 4 inapplicable to legal conclusions [and] mere conclusory statements,” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 5 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)), and courts “do not 6 necessarily assume the truth of legal conclusions merely because they are cast in the form of 7 factual allegations.” Coto Settlement v. Eisenberg, 593 F.3d 1031, 1034 (9th Cir. 2010) (internal 8 quotation marks omitted). The complaint need not contain “detailed factual allegations,” but must 9 allege facts sufficient to “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 678 (citing 10 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). 11 Where the complaint has been filed by a pro se plaintiff, courts must “construe the 12 pleadings liberally . . . to afford the petitioner the benefit of any doubt.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 13 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010). “A pro se litigant must be given leave to amend his or her complaint 14 unless it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies in the complaint could not be cured by 15 amendment.” Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987), superseded on other grounds 16 by statute, as recognized in Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). Further, 17 when it dismisses the complaint of a pro se litigant with leave to amend, “the district court must 18 provide the litigant with notice of the deficiencies in his complaint in order to ensure that the 19 litigant uses the opportunity to amend effectively.” Id. (quoting Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 20 1258, 1261 (9th Cir. 1992)). “Without the benefit of a statement of deficiencies, the pro se litigant 21 will likely repeat previous errors.” Karim-Panahi v. L.A. Police Dep’t, 839 F.2d 621, 624 (9th 22 Cir. 1988) (quoting Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987)). 23 B. Discussion 24 Even liberally construed, Plaintiff’s allegation do not state any viable claim. Plaintiff has 25 referred generally to his “civil rights” but he does not identify any specific statute or constitutional 26 right he contends has been violated. Nor has he identified the specific conduct on the part of the 27 named defendant (or anyone else) that is the basis for his claim. To the extent he may be asserting ] allegations about the nature of the contract or the breach is insufficient to state a claim. The Court 2 || also notes that the Complaint contains no allegation that the named defendant is a party to the 3 contract referenced in the Complaint. 4 For these reasons, the Court finds that Plaintiff's complaint is insufficient under 28 U.S.C. 5 § 1915(e)(2)(B). 6 || IV. CONCLUSION 7 For the reasons discussed above, Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why this case 8 should not be dismissed. Plaintiff may respond by filing either an amended complaint that 9 || addresses the deficiencies discussed above or a response that addresses why his current complaint 10 || is sufficient. Plaintiffs response shall be filed by April 17, 2026. If Plaintiff does not file a 11 response by that date, the case will be reassigned to a United States district judge with a 12 || recommendation that it be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 13 Plaintiff, who is not represented by counsel, is encouraged to consult with the Federal Pro 14 || Bono Project’s Legal Help Center in either of the Oakland or San Francisco federal courthouses 3 15 for assistance. The San Francisco Legal Help Center office is located in Room 2796 on the 15th 16 floor at 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102. The Oakland office is located in 17 || Room 470 S on the 4th floor at 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, CA 94612. Appointments can be made Zz 18 || by calling (415) 782-8982 or emailing federalprobonoproject@sfbar.org. Lawyers at the Legal 19 || Help Center can provide basic assistance to parties representing themselves but cannot provide 20 || legal representation. 22 || Dated: April 2, 2026 23 5 Zo © a J PH C. SPERO 24 nited States Magistrate Judge 25 26 27 28