1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 JEVARIEN Z. DUNLAP, 7 Case No. 25-cv-08643-JCS Plaintiff, 8 v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 9 CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED BAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT, 10 Defendant. 11
12 13 I. INTRODUCTION 14 Plaintiff Jevarien Dunlap, pro se, applied to proceed in forma pauperis and the Court 15 granted his application. Dkt. no. 5. The Court now reviews the sufficiency of Plaintiff’s 16 complaint to determine whether it satisfies 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Because the complaint 17 does not appear to plausibly state a claim, Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why the 18 complaint should not be dismissed. Plaintiff may file either an amended complaint or a response 19 to this order addressing why his complaint is sufficient, no later than December 10, 2025. The 20 Case Management Conference set for January 7, 2026 is vacated. 21 II. ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT1 22 Plaintiff has filed a form complaint naming as defendants: 1) Bay Area Rapid Transit; 2) 23 Northern California; 3) Oakland, California and 4) San Francisco, California. He states that he is 24 asserting a claim under the False Claims Act. The only substantive allegation in the complaint is 25 as follows: “I was aware that BART opened and started functions at 5 am due to a poster in 26 1 Because the factual allegations of a plaintiff’s complaint are generally taken as true in the context 27 of determining whether the complaint states a claim, this section summarizes Plaintiff’s 1 Millbrae but instead they opened at 7 am.” Compl. at 4. Plaintiff seeks a “reward” of $160,000. 2 Id. 3 III. ANALYSIS 4 A. Legal Standards Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and Rule 12(b)(6) 5 Where a plaintiff is found to be indigent under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and is granted leave 6 to proceed in forma pauperis, courts must engage in screening and dismiss any claims which: 7 (1) are frivolous or malicious; (2) fail to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (3) seek 8 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see 9 Marks v. Solcum, 98 F.3d 494, 495 (9th Cir. 1996). 10 To state a claim for relief, a plaintiff must make “a short and plain statement of the claim 11 showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Further, a claim may be 12 dismissed for “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); 13 see also Diaz v. Int’l Longshore and Warehouse Union, Local 13, 474 F.3d 1202, 1205 (9th Cir. 14 2007). In determining whether a plaintiff fails to state a claim, the court takes “all allegations of 15 material fact in the complaint as true and construe[s] them in the light most favorable to the non- 16 moving party.” Cedars-Sinai Med. Ctr. v. Nat’l League of Postmasters of U.S., 497 F.3d 972, 975 17 (9th Cir. 2007). However, “the tenet that a court must accept a complaint’s allegations as true is 18 inapplicable to legal conclusions [and] mere conclusory statements,” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 19 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)), and courts “do not 20 necessarily assume the truth of legal conclusions merely because they are cast in the form of 21 factual allegations.” Coto Settlement v. Eisenberg, 593 F.3d 1031, 1034 (9th Cir. 2010) (internal 22 quotation marks omitted). The complaint need not contain “detailed factual allegations,” but must 23 allege facts sufficient to “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 678 (citing 24 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). 25 Where the complaint has been filed by a pro se plaintiff, courts must “construe the 26 pleadings liberally . . . to afford the petitioner the benefit of any doubt.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 27 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010). “A pro se litigant must be given leave to amend his or her complaint 1 amendment.” Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987), superseded on other grounds 2 by statute, as recognized in Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). Further, 3 when it dismisses the complaint of a pro se litigant with leave to amend, “the district court must 4 provide the litigant with notice of the deficiencies in his complaint in order to ensure that the 5 litigant uses the opportunity to amend effectively.” Id. (quoting Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 6 1258, 1261 (9th Cir. 1992)). “Without the benefit of a statement of deficiencies, the pro se litigant 7 will likely repeat previous errors.” Karim-Panahi v. L.A. Police Dep’t, 839 F.2d 621, 624 (9th 8 Cir. 1988) (quoting Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987)). 9 B. Discussion 10 The federal False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729-3733 (“FCA”), “allows private 11 individuals, referred to as ‘relators,’ to bring suit on the Government’s behalf against entities that 12 have violated the [FCA’s] prohibitions.” U.S. ex rel. Mateski v. Raytheon Co., 816 F.3d 565, 569 13 (9th Cir. 2016) (citing 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(1)). “Such suits are commonly called qui tam suits.” 14 Id. In a qui tam suit, the relator asserts the FCA claim “on behalf of the government, which may 15 choose to intervene in the action” and “[i]f the relator is successful, she is entitled to a share of the 16 recovery, whether or not the government intervenes.” Seal 1 v. Seal A, 255 F.3d 1154, 1158 (9th 17 Cir. 2001) (citing 31 U.S.C. §§ 3730(d)(1), (2)). 18 The FCA provides that any person who “knowingly presents, or causes to be presented, a 19 false or fraudulent claim for payment or approval,” or who “knowingly makes, uses, or causes to 20 be made or used, a false record or statement material to a false or fraudulent claim” is liable for a 21 civil penalty “plus 3 times the amount of damages which the Government sustains because of the 22 act of that person.” 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)(A)-(B). The elements of an FCA claim are: “‘(1) a 23 false statement or fraudulent course of conduct, (2) made with scienter, (3) that was material, 24 causing (4) the government to pay out money or forfeit moneys due.’” United States Ex Rel. Rose 25 v.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 JEVARIEN Z. DUNLAP, 7 Case No. 25-cv-08643-JCS Plaintiff, 8 v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 9 CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED BAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT, 10 Defendant. 11
12 13 I. INTRODUCTION 14 Plaintiff Jevarien Dunlap, pro se, applied to proceed in forma pauperis and the Court 15 granted his application. Dkt. no. 5. The Court now reviews the sufficiency of Plaintiff’s 16 complaint to determine whether it satisfies 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Because the complaint 17 does not appear to plausibly state a claim, Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why the 18 complaint should not be dismissed. Plaintiff may file either an amended complaint or a response 19 to this order addressing why his complaint is sufficient, no later than December 10, 2025. The 20 Case Management Conference set for January 7, 2026 is vacated. 21 II. ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT1 22 Plaintiff has filed a form complaint naming as defendants: 1) Bay Area Rapid Transit; 2) 23 Northern California; 3) Oakland, California and 4) San Francisco, California. He states that he is 24 asserting a claim under the False Claims Act. The only substantive allegation in the complaint is 25 as follows: “I was aware that BART opened and started functions at 5 am due to a poster in 26 1 Because the factual allegations of a plaintiff’s complaint are generally taken as true in the context 27 of determining whether the complaint states a claim, this section summarizes Plaintiff’s 1 Millbrae but instead they opened at 7 am.” Compl. at 4. Plaintiff seeks a “reward” of $160,000. 2 Id. 3 III. ANALYSIS 4 A. Legal Standards Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and Rule 12(b)(6) 5 Where a plaintiff is found to be indigent under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and is granted leave 6 to proceed in forma pauperis, courts must engage in screening and dismiss any claims which: 7 (1) are frivolous or malicious; (2) fail to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (3) seek 8 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see 9 Marks v. Solcum, 98 F.3d 494, 495 (9th Cir. 1996). 10 To state a claim for relief, a plaintiff must make “a short and plain statement of the claim 11 showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Further, a claim may be 12 dismissed for “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); 13 see also Diaz v. Int’l Longshore and Warehouse Union, Local 13, 474 F.3d 1202, 1205 (9th Cir. 14 2007). In determining whether a plaintiff fails to state a claim, the court takes “all allegations of 15 material fact in the complaint as true and construe[s] them in the light most favorable to the non- 16 moving party.” Cedars-Sinai Med. Ctr. v. Nat’l League of Postmasters of U.S., 497 F.3d 972, 975 17 (9th Cir. 2007). However, “the tenet that a court must accept a complaint’s allegations as true is 18 inapplicable to legal conclusions [and] mere conclusory statements,” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 19 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)), and courts “do not 20 necessarily assume the truth of legal conclusions merely because they are cast in the form of 21 factual allegations.” Coto Settlement v. Eisenberg, 593 F.3d 1031, 1034 (9th Cir. 2010) (internal 22 quotation marks omitted). The complaint need not contain “detailed factual allegations,” but must 23 allege facts sufficient to “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 678 (citing 24 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). 25 Where the complaint has been filed by a pro se plaintiff, courts must “construe the 26 pleadings liberally . . . to afford the petitioner the benefit of any doubt.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 27 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010). “A pro se litigant must be given leave to amend his or her complaint 1 amendment.” Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987), superseded on other grounds 2 by statute, as recognized in Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). Further, 3 when it dismisses the complaint of a pro se litigant with leave to amend, “the district court must 4 provide the litigant with notice of the deficiencies in his complaint in order to ensure that the 5 litigant uses the opportunity to amend effectively.” Id. (quoting Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 6 1258, 1261 (9th Cir. 1992)). “Without the benefit of a statement of deficiencies, the pro se litigant 7 will likely repeat previous errors.” Karim-Panahi v. L.A. Police Dep’t, 839 F.2d 621, 624 (9th 8 Cir. 1988) (quoting Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987)). 9 B. Discussion 10 The federal False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729-3733 (“FCA”), “allows private 11 individuals, referred to as ‘relators,’ to bring suit on the Government’s behalf against entities that 12 have violated the [FCA’s] prohibitions.” U.S. ex rel. Mateski v. Raytheon Co., 816 F.3d 565, 569 13 (9th Cir. 2016) (citing 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(1)). “Such suits are commonly called qui tam suits.” 14 Id. In a qui tam suit, the relator asserts the FCA claim “on behalf of the government, which may 15 choose to intervene in the action” and “[i]f the relator is successful, she is entitled to a share of the 16 recovery, whether or not the government intervenes.” Seal 1 v. Seal A, 255 F.3d 1154, 1158 (9th 17 Cir. 2001) (citing 31 U.S.C. §§ 3730(d)(1), (2)). 18 The FCA provides that any person who “knowingly presents, or causes to be presented, a 19 false or fraudulent claim for payment or approval,” or who “knowingly makes, uses, or causes to 20 be made or used, a false record or statement material to a false or fraudulent claim” is liable for a 21 civil penalty “plus 3 times the amount of damages which the Government sustains because of the 22 act of that person.” 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)(A)-(B). The elements of an FCA claim are: “‘(1) a 23 false statement or fraudulent course of conduct, (2) made with scienter, (3) that was material, 24 causing (4) the government to pay out money or forfeit moneys due.’” United States Ex Rel. Rose 25 v. Stephens Inst., 909 F.3d 1012, 1017 (9th Cir. 2018), cert. denied sub nom. Stephens Inst. v. U.S. 26 ex rel. Rose, 139 S. Ct. 1464 (2019) (quoting United States ex rel. Hendow v. University of 27 Phoenix, 461 F.3d 1166 (9th Cir. 2006)). 1 with scienter or that it was material to any payment of money by the government. Therefore, he 2 has not stated a claim under the FCA. Nor is any other viable claim apparent from the face of the 3 Complaint. 4 Plaintiff’s claim is also subject to dismissal because “a pro se relator cannot prosecute a 5 qui tam action on behalf of the United States.” Stoner v. Santa Clara Cnty. Off. of Educ., 502 F.3d 6 1116, 1127 (9th Cir. 2007). 7 IV. CONCLUSION 8 For the reasons discussed above, Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why this case 9 should not be dismissed on the basis that he has not stated any viable claim. Plaintiff may 10 respond by filing either an amended complaint that addresses the deficiencies discussed above or a 11 response that addresses why her current complaint is sufficient. Plaintiff’s response shall be filed 12 by December 10, 2025. If Plaintiff does not file a response by that date, the case will be 13 reassigned to a United States district judge with a recommendation that it be [partially] dismissed 14 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 15 Any amended complaint must include the caption and civil case number used in this order 16 (25-cv-8643) and the words FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first page. Because an 17 amended complaint completely replaces the previous complaint, any amended complaint may not 18 incorporate claims or allegations of Plaintiff’s original complaint by reference, but instead must 19 include all of the facts and claims Plaintiff wishes to present and all of the defendants he wishes to 20 sue. 21 Plaintiff, who is not represented by counsel, is encouraged to consult with the Federal Pro 22 Bono Project’s Legal Help Center in either of the Oakland or San Francisco federal courthouses 23 for assistance. The San Francisco Legal Help Center office is located in Room 2796 on the 15th 24 floor at 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102. The Oakland office is located in 25 Room 470 S on the 4th floor at 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, CA 94612. Appointments can be made 26 by calling (415) 782-8982 or emailing federalprobonoproject@sfbar.org. Lawyers at the Legal
27 1 Help Center can provide basic assistance to parties representing themselves but cannot provide 2 || legal representation. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 5 Dated: November 11, 2025 6 J PH C. SPERO 7 nited States Magistrate Judge 8 9 10 11 12
© 15 16
= 17
Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28