Justin v. Harris-Dupart

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: April 30, 2025
• Docket: 5:25-cv-03714
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 MALIK M. JUSTIN, Case No. 25-cv-03714-LJC

8 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 9 v. APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS SHOULD NOT BE 10 SHAWNTAE HARRIS-DUPART, DENIED AND COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED Defendant. 11 Re: Dkt. Nos. 1, 2

12 13 A. Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis 14 Plaintiff Malik Justin, pro se, has applied to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 2. Justin 15 responded either “No” or “N/A” to every question that he answered on his application form, 16 indicating that he has no assets or income of any kind. Justin did not respond to questions 8 17 through 10, inquiring about his expenses, debts, and related cases. Justin’s application is therefore 18 incomplete, and taken as a whole, it does not include sufficient information to determine whether 19 the answers that he actually provided are credible. Justin is therefore ORDERED TO SHOW 20 CAUSE why his application to proceed in forma pauperis should not be denied, by filing a 21 response no later than May 21, 2025 answering each question on the form application and—if he 22 truly has no assets or income at all—explaining how he meets basic needs. 23 B. Sufficiency of Complaint 24 As Justin likely knows from other cases he has filed in this district, the next step (if the 25 Court grants his application to proceed in forma pauperis) would be for the Court to review his 26 Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) to determine whether it states a claim on which relief 27 may be granted. See, e.g., Justin v. Real Options for City Kids, 24-cv-03309-AMO, ECF No. 6 1 When the complaint has been filed by a pro se plaintiff, a court must “construe the 2 pleadings liberally and . . . afford the petitioner the benefit of any doubt.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 3 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted). But “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a 4 cause of action . . . do not suffice,” and a court need not credit “legal conclusions” or “mere 5 conclusory statements.” See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678–79 (2009). The factual 6 allegations in the complaint “must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” 7 Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). A complaint must demonstrate “facial 8 plausibility” by pleading “factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference 9 that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. In other words, 10 the Complaint needs to include facts, not just the type of legal claim the plaintiff asserts. 11 Justin’s first claim, for patent infringement in violation of 25 U.S.C. § 271, reads in its 12 entirety as follows: “Infriment of Patent Invention actively novelty making sells mucis.” Compl. 13 (ECF No. 1) at 5 (all spelling as in original). In his demand for relief, Justin wrote: “results of the 14 issue handle.” Compl. at 7. Justin offers no factual allegations of any kind to support his claim. 15 If Justin wishes to proceed with his claim, he must file an amended complaint that states the facts 16 of his claim, including (but not necessarily limited to) what if any patent Justin owns, and what he 17 believes Defendant Shawtae Harris Dupart did to infringe that patent. Justin is therefore 18 ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why, if his application to proceed in forma pauperis is granted, 19 his Complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted, 20 by filing a response or amended complaint no later than May 21, 2025. 21 C. Conclusion 22 Justin must file no later than May 21, 2025: (1) a response answering the missing questions 23 on his application to proceed in forma pauperis and explaining how he meets basic needs; and 24 (2) either an amended complaint stating the facts supporting his claim, or a response arguing why 25 his current Complaint is sufficient. An amended complaint would completely replace Justin’s 26 current Complaint, and therefore must include all of the facts that he would like to allege and 27 claims he would like to pursue, without reference to the current Complaint. 1 magistrate judge will recommend either denial of his application to proceed in forma pauperis or 2 || dismissal of his Complaint. If Justin does not respond at all, the undersigned may recommend 3 dismissal of the case for failure to prosecute. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 Dated: April 30, 2025 6 5 ts, | Marin — ‘A J. CISNEROS 8 ited States Magistrate Judge 9 10 11 12

© 15 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28