Keith Chan v. Joy F. Campanelli and RE/MAX

• Court: District Court, E.D. Washington
• Decided: November 21, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-00450
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 1 Nov 21, 2025 2 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 5 KEITH CHAN, 6 No. 2:25-CV-00450-ACE

7 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT

8 v.

10 JOY F. CAMPANELLI and RE/MAX,

11 Defendants. 12

13 BEFORE THE COURT is Plaintiff’s complaint filed on November 10, 14 2025. Plaintiff also filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff is 15 proceeding pro se. 16 A complaint filed by any party that seeks to proceed in forma pauperis under 17 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) is subject to screening, and the Court must dismiss a 18 complaint that fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 19 1915(e)(2)(B); see Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998). 20 Plaintiff’s one-page complaint requests relief1 for a violation of due process rights. 21 ECF No. 1. Having reviewed Plaintiff’s allegations liberally, see Capp v. Cnty. of 22 San Diego, 940 F.3d 1046, 1052 (9th Cir. 2019), the Court concludes Plaintiff has 23 failed to allege a particularized injury or otherwise state facts that would entitle 24 him to relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 25 Furthermore, a party initiating a suit in federal court must affirmatively 26 allege facts in the complaint to show that the federal court has jurisdiction to hear 27

28 1Plaintiff’s “Prayer for Relief” seeks $1 billion in damages. Id. 1|| the case. Fifty Assocs. v. Prudential Ins. Co., 446 F.2d 1187, 1189 (9th Cir. 1970) quoting Smith v. McCullough, 270 U.S. 456, 459 (1926). The presumption is that a federal court does not have jurisdiction in a particular case unless it is affirmatively 4|| demonstrated in the complaint. /d. at 1190. Although Plaintiff claims jurisdiction 5|| “under the RICO Act,” ECF No. 1, Plaintiff has failed to specify how this Court 6|| has jurisdiction over the action, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (requiring the court to 7|| dismiss an action if subject matter jurisdiction is lacking). Because the Court does 8 || not have subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claim, it must dismiss the case. 9|| See Oregon v. Legal Servs. Corp., 552 F.3d 965, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). 10 The Court being fully advised, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 11 1. Plaintiff's complaint, ECF No. 1, is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 13 2. Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, is 14|| DENIED AS MOOT. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Executive is directed to file this 16|| Order, provide a copy to Plaintiff, and CLOSE THE FILE. 17 DATED November 21, 2025.

19 Clepualee © Sledim C awl de ALEXANDER C. EKSTROM = UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

22 23 24 25 26 27 28

ORDER - 2