# Opinion

> District Court, C.D. California · July 1, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11385405

## Case

- **Full name:** Jordan Rich v. The Corporation of the President of the Church of Latter-Day Saints, et al.
- **Court:** District Court, C.D. California
- **Decided:** July 1, 2026
- **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/11385405

## Opinion text

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)

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11385405. Public record. Not legal advice.