# Gregory v. Google

> District Court, D. Hawaii · December 15, 2021

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10131696

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, D. Hawaii
- **Decided:** December 15, 2021
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10131696

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
STUART TODD GREGORY, ) CIVIL NO. 21-00482 SOM/KJM
)
Plaintiff, ) ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT;
) ORDER DENYING AS MOOT
vs. ) APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN
) FORMA PAUPERIS
GOOGLE, INC.; BARACK OBAMA; )
UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII, HILO, )
)
Defendants. )
_____________________________ )
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT; ORDER DENYING
AS MOOT APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
I. INTRODUCTION.
On December 6, 2021, Plaintiff Stuart Todd Gregory
filed a Complaint as well as an Application to Proceed in
District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (“IFP
Application”). See ECF Nos. 1-2. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1915(e)(2), this court has screened the Complaint and
determined that it fails to state a claim on which relief may be
granted. Accordingly, the court dismisses the Complaint and
denies the IFP Application as moot.
II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND.
This court has great difficulty understanding the
Complaint and finds it sometimes illegible and unintelligible.
See, e.g., ECF No. 1, PageID # 11 (“IT IS A CONTRADICTION IF HE
CAN’T HAVE WHATEVER TO HAVE AS DESIRED HAVING SOME DOCUMENT IN
THE CLOUD TO EQUATE AS REIGN OF UNDERSTANDING FOR RAIN TO FALL
ABOUT THE GOOD RAIN NOT AS DEEMED A BLESSING BUT EXPOSED TO BEAR
PAY FOR EXCLUSIVE CONNECTION AS THE IDEAL OF ADS OR HARVESTING TO
DISCOVER MEANING PROFOUND”).
It is not at all clear why Gregory has sued any of the
Defendants. At best, Gregory appears to be suing Google because
he thinks Google caused him to lose some unidentified possession
in 2007. See ECF No. 1, PageID # 5.
Moreover, the relief Gregory seeks does not correlate
to any alleged injury cause by any Defendant: “RELIEF FROM ANGER
TO BE IMPOVERISHED BY THOSE AS HERE ON OAHU WHO TOOK SUITCASE AND
PAPER MONEY AS THUS IN A FULL SCALE ATTACK TO DOMINATE.” Id.,
PageID # 6.
III. STANDARD.
To proceed in forma pauperis, Gregory must demonstrate
that he is unable to prepay the court fees, and that he

sufficiently pleads claims. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122,
1129 (9th Cir. 2000). The court therefore screens his Complaint
to see whether it is (1) frivolous or malicious; (2) fails to
state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (3) seeks
monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such
relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); Denton v. Hernandez, 504
U.S. 25, 32 (1992) (the in forma pauperis statute “accords judges
not only the authority to dismiss a claim based on an
indisputably meritless legal theory, but also the unusual power
2
to pierce the veil of the complaint’s factual allegations and
dismiss those claims whose factual contentions are clearly
baseless . . . . Examples of the latter class . . . are claims
describing fantastic or delusional scenarios.”).
IV. ANALYSIS.
The factual allegations in the Complaint fail to assert
any viable claim supported by sufficient factual allegations. As
noted in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555
(2007), the factual allegations in a complaint, when assumed to
be true, must be enough to raise a right to relief above the
speculative level. See also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
(2009) (“the pleading standard Rule 8 announces does not require
‘detailed factual allegations,’ but it demands more than an
unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation”). A
“plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his

‘entitlement to relief’ requires more than labels and
conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a
cause of action will not do.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. A
complaint is required to “state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.” Id. at 570. “A claim has facial
plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that
allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the
defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S.
at 677.
3
It is not at all clear why any Defendant has been named
in the Complaint. At best, Gregory appears to blame Google for
Gregory’s loss of something, but this court cannot glean from the
allegations in the Complaint what Google might have done to cause
that loss. In fact, there are no factual allegations that would
put any Defendant on notice of the claim(s) against that
Defendant. The Court therefore dismisses the Complaint, as it
fails to allege any viable claim supported by sufficient factual
allegations.
V. CONCLUSION.
Gregory’s Complaint is dismissed, and the IFP
Application is denied as moot. The court grants Gregory leave to
file an Amended Complaint that states a viable claim no later

than January 14, 2022. Gregory may submit another IFP
Application at that time. Failure to file an Amended Complaint
by January 14, 2022, as well as to pay the applicable filing fee
or submit a new IFP Application, will result in the automatic
dismissal of this action.
The court provides some guidance to Gregory if he
decides to file an Amended Complaint. First, Gregory should
attempt to write as legibly as possible and should avoid writing
words haphazardly on pages. If this court cannot read Gregory’s
writing or follow his thought process, important information may
be missed. If Gregory uses a court form, he may, of course,
4
submit additional pages in lieu of writing words all over the
form in a manner that makes it difficult to understand.
Second, Gregory should state in simple language what
each Defendant allegedly did and what statute, law, or duty was
supposedly breached by the particular Defendant. In other words,
Gregory should allege facts with respect to what each Defendant
allegedly did and what each Defendant should be held liable for.
Finally, Gregory should articulate the relief he is
seeking. That is, if he is seeking monetary damages, he should
say so clearly and identify the Defendant(s) from whom he is
seeking such damages.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, December 15, 2021.

gi TE ES Tere, /s/ Susan Oki Mollway
& «|B Susan Oki Mollway
ur * United States District Judge

Gregory v. Google, Inc., et al., Civ. No. 21-00482 SOM/KJM; ORDER DISMISSING
COMPLAINT; ORDER DENYING AS MOOT APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10131696. Public record. Not legal advice.