The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 JOHN KONG DIU, Case No.: 25-cv-2331-BJC-MSB
12 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT
WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND
13 v.
DENYING MOTION TO PROCEED
14 CYBERSECURITY, IN FORMA PAUPERIS
15 Defendant.
[ECF Nos. 1, 2]
16
17
18
19 INTRODUCTION
20 On September 8, 2025, John Kong Diu, proceeding pro se, filed the instant
21 complaint. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff also filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis
22 (“IFP”). ECF Nos. 2. For the reasons discussed below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s
23 motion to proceed IFP and dismisses the complaint without prejudice.
24 DISCUSSION
25 I. Motion to Proceed IFP
26 All parties instituting a civil action, suit, or proceeding in a district court of the
27 United States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of
28 $402. See U.S.C. § 1914(a); CivLR 4.5. A court may authorize the commencement of a
1 suit without prepayment of fees if the plaintiff submits an affidavit, including a statement
2 of all his or her assets, showing that he or she is unable to pay the fee. See 28 U.S.C. §
3 1915(a).
4 Plaintiff contends he receives monthly payments of $1,226 in disability payments
5 and $2,232 in public assistance. ECF No. 2 at 2. He reports no employment history for
6 the last two years, no bank accounts, and no assets. Id. at 2-3. He lists $83 per month for
7 utilities as his sole expense. As submitted, it appears Plaintiff is able to pay the one-time
8 filing fee. As such, the motion to proceed IFP is DENIED.
9 II. Screening of the Complaint
10 A complaint filed by any person proceeding in formal pauperis pursuant to 28 §
11 1915(a) is subject to a mandatory and sua sponte review, and dismissal by the court to the
12 extent it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or
13 seeks monetary relief from a defendant immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §
14 1915(e)(2)(B); Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (“[T]he provisions of 28
15 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) are not limited to prisoners.”). A court may also dismiss an action
16 sua sponte, at any time, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. FED. R. CIV. P. 12(h)(3);
17 Harmon v. Superior Ct. of State of Cal. In & For Los Angeles Cnty., 307 F.2d 796, 797
18 (9th Cir. 1962).
19 In his complaint, Plaintiff names “Cybersecurity” as the defendant in the caption but
20 includes “N/A” in the portion of the complaint in which he is required to list the defendants.
21 ECF No. 1 at 2. He asserts federal question jurisdiction and jurisdiction based upon a
22 federal defendant. Id. at 3. However, he includes no information on the defendant he refers
23 to as “Cybersecuity” beyond describing it as “unknown cybersecurity” and stating
24 “Cybersecurity cut off social security reel payment” to support jurisdiction. Id. at 3, 4. In
25 support of his claims for relief, Plaintiff refers to “Cybersecurity” taking action to “cut off
26 [his] social security wire industry,” and he refers to a 6.2% increase in “social security reel
27 income” and records that are separated onto two networks. Id. at 5-6.
28 Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires a complaint to “contain: (1)
1 short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction; (2) a short and plain
2 ||statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief; and (3) a demand for
3 relief sought.” FED. R. CIv. P. 8. Plaintiffs allegations fail to clearly identify the
4 ||alleged federal defendant “Cybersecurity” and the legal theories upon which he seeks
5 ||relief. The complaint vaguely refers to the defendant as “Cybersecurity” and “unknown
6 cybersecurity.” Additionally, the complaint lists two claims and references the Fourth
7 || Amendment in the second claim, but lacks any intelligible facts regarding an unreasonable
8 search or seizure. Generally, courts have a duty to construe pro se pleadings liberally. See
9 || Bernhardt v. Los Angeles Cnty., 339 F.3d 920, 925 (9th Cir. 2003). However, “a liberal
10 || interpretation of a [pro se] complaint may not supply essential elements of the claim that
11 || were not initially pled.” /vey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). As
12 alleged, Plaintiff fails to comply with Rule 8.
13 CONCLUSION AND ORDER
14 Based on the foregoing, the Court DISMISSES the complaint without prejudice
15 || pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i1)) and DENIES Plaintiff's motion to proceed IFP. Plaintiff
16 || may file an amended complaint addressing the deficiencies noted above no later than May
17 2026. To proceed with an amended complaint, Plaintiff must pay the filing fee no later
18 May 15, 2026.
19 IT IS SO ORDERED.
20 || Dated: April 14, 2026
21
23 Honorable Benjamin J. Cheeks
24 United States District Judge
25
26
27
28