Ronald Satish Smith v. Bill Gates, et al.

Opinion

Ronald Satish SMITH, Case No.: 25-cv-3641-AGS-AHG

Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING IFP MOTION v. (ECF 2) AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT Bill GATES, et al.,

Defendants.

Plaintiff Ronald Smith moves to proceed without paying the usual $405 in court fees. See Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999) (“An action may proceed despite failure to pay the filing fees only if the party is granted IFP [in forma pauperis] status.”); 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) (“filing fee of $350”); Judicial Conference Schedule of Fees, District Court Misc. Fee Schedule, § 14 (eff. Dec. 1, 2023) (“Administrative fee” of “$55”). Smith has no assets, and his disability payments hardly exceed his expenses (see ECF 2), so he need not pay the filing fees. See Blount v. Saul, No. 21-CV-0679-BLM, 2021 WL 1561453, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 21, 2021) (“[A] party need not be completely destitute to proceed IFP.”). Next, the Court must screen the complaint and dismiss it if it is “frivolous” or “fails to state a claim.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Smith seeks “500 billion dollars” from—and “an injunction and/or declaratory judgment” against—the defendant corporations and corporate leaders, “The Mythical Bavarian Illuminati as Urban Legend,” Pope Leo XIV, and others. But he does not have Article III standing to sue. To have standing, a plaintiff “must have suffered” a “concrete and particularized” “injury in fact.” Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992). Smith alleges that defendants “have committed industrial espionage” and both “read the minds of” and “spy on” consumers. (ECF 1, at 8–9.) But he does not allege that he owns or has consumed any of defendants’ products or that he has otherwise been the alleged misbehavior’s subject. So, he lacks standing. Smith’s IFP request is GRANTED, and his complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice and with leave to amend. Any amended complaint is due February 27, 2026. Dated: January 27, 2026

Hon. Andrew G. Schopler United States District Judge