Opinion

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. 5:26-cv-00809-SPG-PD Date: July 1, 2026

Title Jordan Rich v. The Corporation of the President of the Church of Latter-Day

Saints, et al.

Present: The Honorable: Patricia Donahue, United States Magistrate Judge

Isabel Verduzco N/A

Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff: Attorneys Present for Defendants:

N/A N/A

Proceedings (In Chambers): Order Dismissing Complaint

with Leave to Amend

On February 17, 2026, Plaintiff Jordan Rich (“Plaintiff”), proceeding

pro se, filed a document entitled “Petition for Permanent Civil Stalking

Injunction and Protective Order” against Defendants The Corporation of the

President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, Renae Rich

Angeloff, Scott Rich, Monica Rich, and Does 1-1000, which has been docketed

as the Complaint. Dkt. No. 1 at 1. Plaintiff invokes 42 U.S.C. § 1985 and 18

U.S.C. § 2261A as the basis for jurisdiction. Id.

The Court has screened the Complaint and concluded that it is subject

to dismissal without prejudice.1 Plaintiff will be given an opportunity to file a

First Amended Complaint following the Court’s guidance below.

1 Magistrate judges may dismiss a complaint with leave to amend without approval

of the district judge. See McKeever v. Block, 932 F.2d 795, 798 (9th Cir. 1991).

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. 5:26-cv-00809-SPG-PD Date: July 1, 2026

Title Jordan Rich v. The Corporation of the President of the Church of Latter-Day

Saints, et al.

I. Summary of Factual Allegations and Claims

Plaintiff alleges a continuous seventeen-year pattern of stalking and

harassment intending to coerce Plaintiff into silence regarding a 2008

Confidential Asset Agreement. Dkt. No. 1 at 1.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants utilized missionaries and “Shame

Agents” to conduct surveillance at Plaintiff’s places of work, study, and

affiliation, including in Utah, Nevada, and California. Id. at 1-2. Plaintiff

further alleges that Defendants used dating applications, including Tinder

and Bumble, to harass him and used missionaries and “Shame Agents” to

obtain information concerning him though his mechanic services. Id.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants coordinated the theft of Plaintiff’s

firearm, pocketknife, passport, and birth certificate. Id. at 2. Plaintiff

further alleges that a cartel member informed Plaintiff in 2025 that someone

had paid to have him killed. Id.

Plaintiff also alleges that Defendants coordinated with the Department

of Justice to carry out a “Digital Execution” designed to terminate Plaintiff’s

digital identity and interfere with his business activities. Id.

Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction and protective order requiring

Defendants and affiliated parties to cease physical surveillance and digital

interference, prohibiting third-party contact, and barring Defendants from

contacting Plaintiff directly or indirectly. Id. Plaintiff alleges that failure to

grant the requested relief will result in his physical death. Id.

II. Legal Standard

The Court is required to screen pro se complaints and dismiss claims

that, among other things, are frivolous, malicious, or fail to state a claim

upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); see also Lopez v.

Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126–27 n.7 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). Even when a

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. 5:26-cv-00809-SPG-PD Date: July 1, 2026

Title Jordan Rich v. The Corporation of the President of the Church of Latter-Day

Saints, et al.

plaintiff is not proceeding in forma pauperis, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

12(b)(6) permits a court to dismiss a claim sua sponte and without notice

“where the claimant cannot possibly win relief.” See Omar v. Sea–Land

Serv., Inc., 813 F.2d 986, 991 (9th Cir. 1987). When a complaint clearly does

not state a claim upon which the court can grant relief, a court may dismiss

the case on its own, at the outset, without leave to amend. See Reed v.

Lieurance, 863 F.3d 1196, 1207-08 (9th Cir. 2017) (affirming district court’s

sua sponte dismissal of claim under Fed. R. Civ. P 12(b)(6)); Wong v. Bell, 642

F.2d 359, 361-62 (9th Cir. 1981) (district court has authority under Rule

12(b)(6) to dismiss sua sponte for failure to state a claim).

III. Discussion

A. Failure to Comply with Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure Rule 8

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 requires that a complaint contain a

short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to

relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). While Rule 8 does not require detailed factual

allegations, at a minimum, a complaint must allege facts sufficient to provide

“fair notice” of both the particular claim being asserted and “the grounds

upon which [the particular claim] rests.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550

U.S. 544, 555 & n.3 (2007) (citation and quotation marks omitted). If a

plaintiff fails to clearly and concisely set forth factual allegations sufficient to

provide defendants with notice of which defendant is being sued, on which

theory, and what relief is being sought against them, the pleading fails to

comply with Rule 8. See, e.g., McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177-78 (9th

Cir. 1996) (a complaint must make clear “who is being sued, for what relief,

and on what theory, with enough detail to guide discovery”).

The Complaint contains allegations spanning approximately seventeen

years, numerous states, and more than one thousand Doe defendants. Dkt.

No. 1. at 1-2. Plaintiff attributes broad allegations of surveillance, digital

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. 5:26-cv-00809-SPG-PD Date: July 1, 2026

Title Jordan Rich v. The Corporation of the President of the Church of Latter-Day

Saints, et al.

interference, and harassment to Defendants collectively and does not

distinguish which Defendant engaged in which conduct. Id. Grouping

Defendants together does not provide fair notice as to what acts or omissions

by each Defendant allegedly caused Plaintiff’s injuries or what legal theory

supports Plaintiff’s claims.

The Central District’s Local Rule 19-1, provides: “No complaint or

petition shall be filed that includes more than ten (10) Doe or fictitiously

named parties.” C.D. Cal. L.R. 19-1. Generally, courts do not favor actions

against “unknown” defendants. Wakefield v. Thompson, 177 F.3d 1160, 1163

(9th Cir. 1999). Nonetheless, a plaintiff may sue unnamed defendants when

the identity of the alleged defendants is not known before filing the

complaint. Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637, 642 (9th Cir. 1980).

Here, the Complaint contains no factual allegations describing alleged

wrongdoing by the fictitious Defendants. It contains no factual allegations

demonstrating that the fictitious Defendants purportedly violated Plaintiff's

constitutional rights. Plaintiff's conclusory allegations are insufficient to

state a claim for relief against any of the fictitious Defendants. See Ashcroft

v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (plaintiff must allege more than an

“unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation”; a pleading

that offers “labels and conclusions or a formulaic recitation of the elements of

a cause of action will not do”).

For these reasons, the Complaint is subject to dismissal.

B. No Private Right of Action Under 18 U.S.C. § 2261A

Plaintiff invokes 18 U.S.C. § 2261A, the federal interstate stalking

statute, as a basis for jurisdiction and alleges that Defendants engaged in a

pattern of interstate harassment and stalking. Dkt. No. 1 at 1.

“Generally, criminal statutes do not confer private rights of action ....”

Bailey v. Clarke, 2012 WL 6720628, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2012) (citing

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. 5:26-cv-00809-SPG-PD Date: July 1, 2026

Title Jordan Rich v. The Corporation of the President of the Church of Latter-Day

Saints, et al.

Stupy v. U.S. Postal Serv., 951 F.2d 1079, 1081 (9th Cir. 1991)). Title 18 of

the United States Code concerns federal crimes. Plaintiff’s allegations that

Defendants violated various federal criminal statutes under Title 18 do not

state cognizable civil claims. See Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1092 (9th

Cir. 1980) (criminal provisions under Title 18 of the U.S. Code “provide no

basis for civil liability”) (citations omitted); Allen v. Gold Country Casino, 464

F.3d 1044, 1048 (9th Cir. 2006) (“We affirm the dismissal of Allen’s claims

under 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 and 242 because these are criminal statutes that do

not give rise to civil liability.”); Gilreath v. Bach, No. EDCV 17-0694, 2017

WL 5593017, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 11, 2017), report and recommendation

adopted, 2017 WL 5564545 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 9, 2017) (“Plaintiff has failed to

state a claim under 18 U.S.C. §§ 4, 241, 242, 872, 1341, or any other criminal

statute referenced in the Complaint.”).

Section 2261A is a criminal statute. Criminal statutes generally do not

create private rights of action absent clear Congressional intent. See Cort v.

Ash, 422 U.S. 66, 78-79 (1975) overruled in part by Touche Ross & Co. v.

Redington, 442 U.S. 560 (1979). Courts have consistently held that no

private action is available under § 2261A. See Rock v. BAE Sys., Inc., 556 F.

App’x 869, 871 (11th Cir. 2014); Cain v. Christine Valmy Int'l Sch. of

Esthetics, Skin Care, & Makeup, 216 F. Supp. 3d 328, 335 (S.D.N.Y. 2016).

Because 18 U.S.C. § 2261A does not provide a private right of action,

Plaintiff may not pursue civil claims or obtain relief under that statute.

For these reasons, the Complaint is subject to dismissal.

C. Failure to State a Claim Under 42 U.S.C. § 1985

Plaintiff invokes 42 U.S.C. § 1985 and alleges that Defendants

conspired in a longstanding campaign of stalking and harassment to coerce

Plaintiff into silence regarding the 2008 Confidential Asset Agreement. Dkt.

No. 1 at 1.

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. 5:26-cv-00809-SPG-PD Date: July 1, 2026

Title Jordan Rich v. The Corporation of the President of the Church of Latter-Day

Saints, et al.

Section 1985 prohibits several types of conspiracies. In relevant part,

Section 1985(3) prohibits conspiracies to deprive any person or class of

persons “of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and

immunities under the laws.” A party injured by an act taken in furtherance

of a conspiracy prohibited by 42 U.S.C. § 1985 may recover damages against

any one or more of the conspirators. 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3). To establish a

conspiracy, a plaintiff must show “an agreement or meeting of the minds[.]”

Mendocino Env't Ctr. v. Mendocino Cnty., 192 F.3d 1283, 1301 (9th Cir.

1999). Conclusory allegations of a conspiracy “without factual specificity” are

insufficient to state a § 1985 claim. Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police

Dep't, 839 F.2d 621, 626 (9th Cir. 1988); see also Cardenas v. Cnty. of

Tehama, 476 F. Supp. 3d 1055, 1069 (E.D. Cal. 2020) (citation omitted) (“A

§ 1985 claim ‘must allege facts to support the allegation that defendants

conspired together. A mere allegation of conspiracy without factual

specificity is insufficient.’”).

Further, to state a claim under 48 U.S.C. § 1985(3), a plaintiff must

allege that there was “some racial, or perhaps otherwise class-based,

invidiously discriminatory animus behind the conspirators’ action.” See

Griffin v. Breckenridge, 403 U.S. 88, 102 (1971).

The Complaint contains no allegations from which it reasonably may be

inferred that Defendants acted with racial or otherwise class-based

discriminatory animus. A plaintiff alleging a conspiracy must provide facts

that “show an agreement among the alleged conspirators to deprive the party

of his or her civil rights.” Margolis v. Ryan, 140 F.3d 850, 853 (9th Cir. 2010)

(affirming a district court’s decision to dismiss a section 1983 complaint

alleging conspiracy owing to its reliance on conclusory allegations and an

absence of specific facts to support the existence of a conspiracy). Accordingly,

Plaintiff fails to state a claim under § 1985.

For these reasons, the Complaint is subject to dismissal.

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. 5:26-cv-00809-SPG-PD Date: July 1, 2026

Title Jordan Rich v. The Corporation of the President of the Church of Latter-Day

Saints, et al.

IV. Order

For the foregoing reasons, the Complaint is dismissed with leave to

amend. If Plaintiff is able to amend his allegations to state a cognizable

claim, Plaintiff may file a First Amended Complaint no later than July 20,

2026. Plaintiff is advised that a First Amended Complaint would entirely

replace the Complaint in this action.

(1) Any amended complaint must:

(a) be labeled “First Amended Complaint”;

(b) be complete in and of itself and not refer in any manner to prior

complaints, i.e., it must include all of the claims on which Plaintiff

seeks to proceed, Local Rule 15-2;

(c) contain a “short plain” statement of the claim(s) for relief, see

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a);

(d) make each allegation “simple, concise and direct,” Fed. R. Civ. P.

8(d)(1);

(e) make allegations in numbered paragraphs, “each limited as far

as practicable to a single set of circumstances,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b);

(f) set forth clearly the sequence of events (including specific

relevant dates) which allegedly gives rise to the claim(s) for relief,

including what each defendant did and how each specific

defendant’s conduct injured each specific plaintiff; and

(g) not add defendants or claims without leave of court.

If, given the contents of this Order, Plaintiff elects not to proceed in

this action, he may expedite matters by signing and returning the attached

Notice of Dismissal by July 20, 2026, which will result in the voluntary

dismissal of this action without prejudice.

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. 5:26-cv-00809-SPG-PD Date: July 1, 2026

Title Jordan Rich v. The Corporation of the President of the Church of Latter-Day

Saints, et al.

Plaintiff is cautioned that, absent further order of the Court,

his failure to timely file a First Amended Complaint or Notice of

Dismissal may result in the dismissal of this action with or without

prejudice on the grounds above or for failure to diligently prosecute.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Attachments:

--Central District of California Civil Rights Complaint Form (CV-66)

--Notice of Voluntary Dismissal (CV-09)