Redmond v. United States

1

2

3

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

7 SD DOUGLAS REDMOND, Case No. 22-cv-01107-TSH

8 Plaintiff,

SCREENING ORDER RE: FIRST

9 v. AMENDED COMPLAINT;

CONTINUING INITIAL CASE

10 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE TO

JUNE 16, 2022

11 Defendant.

Re: Dkt. No. 13

12

13

14 I. INTRODUCTION

15 On February 22, 2022, Plaintiff SD Douglas Redmond filed a complaint and an application

16 to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 1. The Court granted the application but found

17 Redmond’s complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. ECF No. 11. The

18 Court directed Redmond to file an amended complaint that addressed the deficiencies of his

19 original complaint or risk dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). This screening order

20 addresses Redmond’s First Amended Complaint, which he filed on April 1, 2022. ECF No. 13.

21 II. BACKGROUND

22 Redmond’s original complaint named the United States of America and DOES 1 through

23 20 as defendants and asserted causes of action for breach of contract, conversion, unjust

24 enrichment, fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, intentional infliction of

25 emotional distress, violation of the Federal Torts Claims Act, and patent infringement. ECF No. 1

26 at ¶¶ 191-297. The complaint alleged a conspiracy to deprive Redmond of a government grant to

27 build electric cars and bribery of United States politicians to deprive the stock market. Id. at 19-

1 On March 17, 2022, the Court issued a screening order advising Redmond that his

2 complaint did not comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 because it did not set forth a

3 short and plain statement of his claims showing that he is entitled to relief. ECF No. 11.

4 Although the complaint listed several causes of action, the complaint lacked sufficient detail

5 regarding the nature of Redmond’s specific claims. Because Redmond listed the United States of

6 America as a defendant, the Court also advised Redmond that certain government entities and

7 individuals are immune from suit and ordered Redmond to clarify who he intends to sue. Id. at 7.

8 The Court directed Redmond to file an amended complaint that addressed these issues by April

9 25, 2022.1 Id. at 9.

10 On April 1, 2022, Redmond filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”).2 FAC, ECF No.

11 13. The FAC now lists forty-seven causes of action against defendant United States of America.

12 Id. at 127-180, 235-249. According to the FAC, “[t]he United States Government, through its

13 employees and contractors, and via orders from White House and other senior officials, caused

14 Google, Facebook, Tesla, Linkedin, YouTube, Kleiner Perkins and other Silicon Valley entities to

15 covertly become part of the U.S. Government” and formed a “Cartel” intended to corrupt the

16 government “for the purpose of manipulating the value of stock market holdings and controlling

17 political policy decisions.” Id. at 10, 75-76. Redmond allegedly suffered harm from this

18 conspiracy, including death threats, prevention of obtaining legal counsel, defamation, social

19 media attacks, poisoning, and loss of social security and public benefits. Id. at 62-101.

20 III. SUA SPONTE SCREENING UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1915(E)(2)

21 A. Legal Standard

22 The Court must dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint before service of process if it is

23 frivolous, fails to state a claim, or contains a complete defense to the action on its face. 28 U.S.C.

24 § 1915(e)(2). To make this determination, the Court assesses whether there is a factual and legal

25 basis for the asserted wrong, “however inartfully pleaded.” Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221,

26

1 The Court’s March 17, 2022 Order also denied Redmond’s Motion to Proceed Anonymously and

27

Motion to Appoint Counsel. ECF No. 11 at 2-4.

1 1227-28 (9th Cir. 1984) (quotation omitted). Pro se pleadings are liberally construed. Erickson v.

2 Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam). The Ninth Circuit has “repeatedly held that a district

3 court should grant leave to amend even if no request to amend the pleading was made, unless it

4 determines that the pleading could not possibly be cured by the allegation of other facts.” Lopez v.

5 Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000).

6 B. Application

7 1. Preliminary Matters

8 The Court will first address Redmond’s requests, which are included in the FAC.

9 Redmond requests the Court allow Redmond to file for Doe status, appoint Redmond an attorney,

10 join individuals from DOJ as co-plaintiffs, verify “that no judge or magistrate holds [s]tock

11 ownership, or personal relationships, in Valic/AIG or the Silicon Valley Cartel companies who are

12 DOE and ROE affiliated insiders,” conduct a “multi-Court official public review for non-bias of

13 judiciary personnel involved in this case,” and order “the FBI to provide the ‘FBI 302’ reports . . .

14 .on Defendants hired attackers.” FAC at 31-32, 38, 73, 102, 125-127.

15 The Court addressed Redmond’s requests to proceed anonymously and appoint an attorney

16 in the Court’s March 17, 2022 Order. For the same reasons as stated in the Order, the Court

17 DENIES Redmond’s requests to proceed anonymously and appoint an attorney. Regarding

18 Redmond’s remaining requests, Redmond fails to establish any legal or factual basis for the

19 requests. The Court therefore DENIES Redmond’s requests to join DOJ individuals as co-

20 plaintiffs, verify judges’ stock ownership and personal relationships in “Cartel” companies,

21 conduct a public review for non-bias, and order FBI to product FBI 302 reports.

22 2. Rule 8

23 The Court now addresses the sufficiency of the FAC. For the reasons stated below, the

24 Court finds the FAC still suffers from the same problems as the original complaint.

25 Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that the complaint set forth a

26 “short and plain statement of the claim showing the pleader is entitled to relief.” Rule 8(d)(1)

27 requires that each allegation in a pleading be “simple, concise, and direct.” See McHenry v.

1 “argumentative, prolix, replete with redundancy, and largely irrelevant”). The failure to comply

2 with Rule 8 is a basis for dismissal that is not dependent on whether the complaint is without

3 merit. McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 1996). Accordingly, even claims which

4 are not on their face subject to dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) may still be dismissed for violating

5 Rule 8(a). Id. Redmond’s pro se status does not relieve him of conformity to the pleading rules.

6 See, e.g., Romano v. U.S. Army Core of Eng’rs, Case No. 17-cv-930-JD, 2017 WL 6448221, at *1

7 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2017).

8 Here, the 1924-page FAC “is an incomprehensible morass of allegations that are a far cry

9 from a short and plain statement of claims and the Court’s jurisdiction over them. A putative

10 defendant would not know where to begin in responding, and the Court cannot determine whether

11 anything in this tangle of allegations is sufficient to state a claim.” Arunachalam v. Davila, Case

12 No. 18-cv-2488-JD, 2018 WL 10245911, at *1 (N.D. Cal. May 17, 2018) (dismissing pro se

13 plaintiff’s complaint with leave to amend for failure to comply with Rule 8’s pleading

14 requirements). The FAC lists 47 causes of action without naming specific defendants and is

15 confusing, disorganized, and contains legal terminology without setting forth facts showing that

16 Redmond is entitled to relief. As such, dismissal is proper under Rule 8. See Cafasso, U.S. ex rel.

17 v. Gen. Dynamics C4 Sys., Inc., 637 F.3d 1047, 1059 (9th Cir. 2011) (complaints are subject to

18 dismissal if they are “needlessly long,” “highly repetitious, confusing, or consist of

19 incomprehensible rambling”); Indep. Towers of Wash. v. Washington, 350 F.3d 925, 929 (9th Cir.

20 2003) (“When reading [plaintiff’s] brief, one wonders if [plaintiff], in its own version of the

21 spaghetti approach, has heaved the entire contents of a pot against the wall in hopes that

22 something would stick. We decline, however, to sort through the noodles in search of [plaintiff’s]

23 claim.”). In order to comply with Rule 8’s pleading requirement, Redmond must amend the FAC

24 to state as clearly as possible the facts giving rise to each cause of action and explain why each

25 named defendant is being sued in connection with the alleged wrongdoing. Each cause of action

26 must include relevant statutory or legal authority, and Redmond should not duplicate his causes of

27 actions. Even if Redmond provides a separate factual allegations section or exhibit, Redmond

1 3. Failure to Clarify Defendants

2 In the Court’s March 17, 2022 Screening Order, the Court instructed Redmond to clarify

3 who he intends to sue because certain government entities are immune from suit. ECF No. 11.

4 The Court finds the FAC fails to clarify who Redmond intends to sue. The FAC identifies

5 the United States of America as a defendant and mentions a number of individuals involved in an

6 alleged conspiracy as examples, but fails to clarify which individuals are actual defendants in the

7 present action. This failure may be a basis for dismissal. See Mahoney v. United States Postal

8 Service, 884 F.2d 1194, 1197 (9th Cir. 1989) (“Failure to name the proper defendant within the

9 limitations period deprives the district court of jurisdiction over the matter.”); Hemsley v. Lunger,

10 Case No. 09-cv-6002-RS (PR), 2010 WL 2609044, at * 1 (N.D. Cal. June 28, 2010) (dismissing

11 complaint where plaintiff failed to name defendants and specify how defendants allegedly violated

12 plaintiff’s rights). Redmond must clarify the defendants of his action and specify how those

13 defendants proximately caused Redmond harm. See Rodgers v. Horsely, 123 Fed.Appx. 281, 286

14 (9th Cir. 2005) (“The test for determining whether a party was an intended defendant to an action

15 is an objective one: would a reasonable defendant have understood the complaint to allege that it

16 was in some way responsible for plaintiff's injury?”) (internal citation and quotations omitted);

17 Wiggins v. Alameda County Sheriff’s Dept., Case No. 08-cv-3150-VRW (PR), 2009 WL 1636140,

18 at *1 (N.D. Cal. June 10, 2009) (“As was the case with his original complaint, plaintiff's first

19 amended complaint in which he again names the Alameda County sheriff's department and John

20 and Jane Doe fails to identify individual defendants and set forth specific facts showing how each

21 defendant proximately caused the deprivation of a federally protected right.”); Young v. Lee, Case.

22 No. 08-cv-5690-VRW (PR), 2009 WL 1227882, at *1 (N.D. Cal. May 5, 2009) (dismissing

23 complaint because “[a]lthough plaintiff identifies several defendants by name and lists numerous

24 other ‘doe defendants’ in his pleading, plaintiff fails to show how any of the defendants

25 proximately caused the deprivation of his federally protected right.”)

26 4. Criminal Allegations

27 Finally, although Redmond lists a cause of action for “Acts or Threats Involving Murder,”

1 See Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 619 (1973) (“[I]n American Jurisprudence ... a private

2 citizen lacks a judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution or nonprosecution of another.”);

3 Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 1980) (federal criminal statutes generally do not

4 provide a private cause of action or a basis for civil liability). Thus, “[i]ndividuals cannot file

5 criminal charges in the United States District Court. Rather, criminal proceedings in federal court

6 are initiated by the government, usually through the United States Attorney’s Office.” Candy-

7 Anh-Thu:Tran v. Daniel, Case No. 17-cv-4243-BLF, 2017 WL 6513414, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 20,

8 2017) (citing Harbor v. Kim, Case No. 16-cv-1906-GW-KS, 2017 WL 443164, at *4 (C.D. Cal.

9 Jan. 31, 2017) (“The decision to institute criminal proceedings lies within the discretion of the

10 proper state or federal prosecuting authority”); see also United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 693

11 (1974) (observing that the executive branch has “exclusive authority and absolute discretion to

12 decide whether to prosecute a case”). Because Redmond lacks standing to bring criminal charges,

13 the Court recommends that any such claim be dismissed without leave to amend. If Redmond

14 believes that the defendants engaged in criminal conduct to violate his civil rights, he must contact

15 federal law enforcement or the United States Attorney's Office and present the facts supporting

16 that belief to them.

17 IV. CONCLUSION

18 Based on the discussion above, the Court would recommend dismissal. However, given

19 Redmond’s pro se status and because it is not clear that the deficiencies of the FAC could not be

20 cured by amendment, the Court shall grant Redmond another opportunity to amend. Redmond

21 must file a second amended complaint addressing the deficiencies in this order by May 26, 2022.

22 If Redmond does not file a timely second amended complaint, the Court will recommend this

23 action be dismissed.

24 An initial case management conference for this case is scheduled for May 26, 2022. The

25 initial case management conference is hereby CONTINUED to June 16, 2022.

26 The Court reminds Redmond that he may wish to seek assistance from the Legal Help

27 Center, a free service offered by the Justice & Diversity Center of the Bar Association of San

1 782-8982. At the Legal Help Center, Redmond will be able to speak with an attorney who may be

2 able to provide basic legal help but not representation. More information is available at

3 || http://cand.uscourts.gov/helpcentersf. Redmond may also wish to obtain a copy of this District’s

4 || Handbook for Litigants Without a Lawyer, which provides instructions on how to proceed at every

5 stage of your case. The handbook is available in person at the Clerk’s Office and online at:

6 || http://cand.uscourts.gov/prosehandbook.

7 IT IS SO ORDERED.

8

9 Dated: May 2, 2022

10 LU \ □ Lj-~—

THOMAS S. HIXSON

I United States Magistrate Judge

12

13

15

16

= 17

Z 18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28