Who v. U.S. 666 Gov.

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: August 4, 2025
• Docket: 5:25-cv-04238
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 GUS WHO, Case No. 25-cv-04238-PCP

8 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT v. 9

10 U.S. 666 GOV., et al., Defendants. 11

12 Anonymous pro se plaintiff “Gus Who” filed this lawsuit seeking a national injunction 13 against the government’s implementation of new regulations that require the use of a “Real ID” to 14 enter various government buildings. This Court previously granted his motion to proceed in forma 15 pauperis, screened his complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted, and 16 ordered him to file an amended complaint and a motion to proceed pseudonymously. He has since 17 filed two amended complaints and one motion for summary judgment. For the reasons stated 18 below, the Court concludes that plaintiff’s amended complaints fail to state a claim on which relief 19 may be granted and therefore dismisses the case. 20 LEGAL STANDARDS 21 28 U.S.C. § 1915 permits a court to authorize a plaintiff to proceed in forma pauperis— 22 i.e., without paying the otherwise mandatory filing fee—if the plaintiff shows that they cannot 23 afford the fees necessary to pursue an action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). The Court, however, 24 must screen every civil action brought in forma pauperis under section 1915 and dismiss any case 25 that is “frivolous or malicious,” “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted,” or “seeks 26 monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Lopez 27 v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000). 1 ANALYSIS 2 I. Plaintiff is not entitled to proceed pseudonymously. 3 As stated in this Court’s prior order, “the identity of the parties in an action, civil or 4 criminal, should not be concealed except in an unusual case, where there is a need for the cloak of 5 anonymity.” United States v. Stoterau, 524 F.3d 988, 1012 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting United States 6 v. Doe, 488 F.3d 1154, 1156 n.1 (9th Cir. 2007)). To proceed pseudonymously, a party must 7 demonstrate that their anonymity is “necessary to protect [them] from injury or harassment” and 8 that such need, in turn, outweighs “the general presumption that parties’ identities are public 9 information.” Id. (citations omitted). 10 Plaintiff filed his initial complaint under the pseudonym, “Gus Who.” This Court ordered 11 him to either (1) refile his complaint using his legal name or (2) file with the amended complaint a 12 motion to proceed pseudonymously that explains why he should be permitted to proceed under a 13 pseudonym. He has done neither. 14 To be sure, plaintiff filed two amended complaints and signed them with what may be his 15 legal name. But he continues to refer to himself throughout his filings as “Gus Who.” He further 16 stated in his first amended complaint that “[i]t is a God given right to file a civil action 17 anonymously.” Dkt. No. 10, at 1. He has cited no legal authority for this proposition, and the 18 Court is unaware of any such precedent that establishes it. Thus, to the extent he intends for this 19 statement to serve as his motion to proceed pseudonymously, that motion is denied. 20 II. Plaintiff’s amended complaints fail to state a claim. 21 Plaintiff filed two documents, both of which he labeled an “amended complaint.” See Dkt. 22 Nos. 10, 12. For the reasons stated below, neither document states a claim on which this Court 23 may grant relief and the case must therefore be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 24 Plaintiff is suing “U.S. 666 Gov.”, which he regularly refers to as “the Antichrist.” 25 Although the plaintiff refers to the defendant by different names, the Court construes his 26 complaint as directed to the United States Government. But the federal government is generally 27 immune from citizen lawsuits unless it has waived that immunity by statute. See Price v. United 1 thereto, and its liability in suit cannot be extended beyond the plain language of the statute 2 authorizing it.”). Plaintiff has not identified any statute under which the federal government has 3 waived its sovereign immunity and his complaint therefore fails to name a defendant amenable to 4 suit. 5 Even assuming the federal government were amenable to suit, this Court previously 6 clarified that Article III of the Constitution restricts the power of the judicial branch to resolving 7 “Cases” and “Controversies.” Dkt. No. 8. “To have Article III standing to sue in federal court, 8 plaintiffs must demonstrate, among other things, that they have suffered a concrete harm.” 9 TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U.S. 413, 417 (2021). “If the plaintiff does not claim to have 10 suffered an injury that the defendant caused and the court can remedy, there is no case or 11 controversy for the federal court to resolve.” Id. at 423 (citation omitted). 12 Plaintiffs’ amended complaint fails to demonstrate that any injury he has suffered is 13 redressable by this Court. Plaintiff’s amended complaint makes a series of allegations, including 14 but not limited to, his alleged targeting by the FBI, an allegedly faked assassination attempt on the 15 President, alleged government conspiracies to deny care to senior citizens and children, and his 16 alleged denial of access to a local museum. But he has not stated with any level of particularity 17 what relief he seeks, the defendant from whom he seeks that relief, or how that relief relates to a 18 “harm ‘traditionally’ recognized as providing a basis for lawsuit in American courts.” Id. at 424. 19 The Court therefore lacks any ability or basis upon which to afford relief, which means that there 20 is no Article III case or controversy presented to the Court by the amended complaints. 21 CONCLUSION 22 For the reasons stated herein, plaintiff is not entitled to proceed under a pseudonym and his 23 complaint fails to state a claim upon which this Court can grant relief. Because there is no reason 24 to conclude that further amendments to the complaint would address the problems identified 25 above, further leave to amend is denied and the case is dismissed. Because dismissal is in part for 26 lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the dismissal is without prejudice. Plaintiff’s motion for 27 summary judgment is denied as moot. 1 IT IS SO ORDERED. 2 || Dated: August 4, 2025 3 A Ze. 4 ° P. Casey Pitts 5 United States District Judge 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

2B

© 15 16

= 17

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