1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 NATHAN DANIEL LEHMANN, Case No. 3:24-cv-02107-JD

8 Plaintiff, ORDER RE IFP APPLICATION AND 9 v. DISMISSAL

10 SOUSANNA “TES” LEE, et al., Defendants. 11

12 Pro se plaintiff Nathan Daniel Lehmann has applied to proceed in forma pauperis. Dkt. 13 No. 2. The request is denied, and the complaint is dismissed. 14 In reviewing an application to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court may dismiss a case sua 15 sponte if the party applying for in forma pauperis status files a frivolous action, fails to state a 16 claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune 17 from such relief.

(e)(2)(B). The Court assesses whether there is an arguable 18 factual and legal basis for the asserted wrong, “however inartfully pleaded.” Franklin v. Murphy, 19

(9th Cir. 1984) (internal quote omitted); see also Williams v. Madrid, 609

(9th Cir. 2015). 21 The complaint is frivolous and at times not readily comprehensible. It alleges, among 22 other claims, that defendants Susanna “Tes” Lee, Mark Zuckerberg, Elon Musk, and Paul Sutin, 23 engaged in “intellectual property theft, fraud, kidnapping, homicide.” Dkt. No. 1 at 2. It says 24 Lehmann invented the Swiffer cleaning product, and the internet companies “Facebook, 25 Instagram, Twitter, Zoom, Spotify, Reddit, and others.” Id. at 4. There are references to an 26 alleged serial killer in Idaho. Id. at 5. 27 1 The complaint lacks any basis in fact, and is dismissed. See Neitzke v. Williams,

319, 327 (1989). Lehmann may file an amended complaint by July 12, 2024. Failure to amend by 3 that date will result in dismissal of this case with prejudice. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 Dated: June 25, 2024 6 7 JAMES#PPONATO 8 United ftates District Judge 9 10 11 12

13

© 15 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28