1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 SEAN-LYONS JOHNSON:BENE, Case No. 22-cv-06782-HSG

8 Plaintiff, ORDER SCREENING AND DISMISSING AMENDED COMPLAINT 9 v. Re: Dkt. No. 28 10 WELLS FARGO OF SAN LEANDRO, et al., 11 Defendants. 12 13 On January 22, 2024, Plaintiff, who represents himself, filed under seal a document that 14 appears to be an amended complaint. Dkt. No. 28. Because Plaintiff is proceeding in forma 15 pauperis, the Court must screen it for minimal legal viability.

(e)(2)(B). In 16 doing so now, the Court determines that Plaintiff fails to state a claim, and DISMISSES his 17 complaint with leave to amend, Dkt. No. 28-1, and DENIES the pending motion to seal. Dkt. No. 18 28. 19 I. BACKGROUND 20 Plaintiff initiated this case on November 11, 2022, when he filed suit against Wells Fargo 21 and four of its employees at a branch in San Leandro for supposedly closing his checking account 22 without notice and, on another occasion, requiring him to provide identifying information that was 23 already in their system. See generally Dkt. No. 1. He alleged that this conduct violated federal 24 statutes addressing consumer privacy and protection.

25 The same day, Plaintiff moved to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), and that motion was 26 granted. Dkt. Nos. 2, 5. As required when a litigant proceeds IFP, Magistrate Judge Beeler 27 screened Plaintiff’s complaint, and determined that because Plaintiff had not plausibly pled a 1 18. The screening order granted Plaintiff leave to amend his complaint, but because Plaintiff did 2 not timely do so, Judge Beeler issued a Report and Recommendation directing the case to be 3 reassigned to a district judge and recommending that the newly assigned district judge dismiss the 4 case with prejudice. See generally Dkt. No. 19. Once reassigned, this Court adopted Judge 5 Beeler’s Report and Recommendation, but permitted Plaintiff to file an amended complaint based 6 on his representation that he never received a copy of Judge Beeler’s report. See Dkt. No. 25. On 7 January 22, 2024, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. Dkt. No. 28-1 (“AC”). He also filed a 8 motion to seal the complaint. Dkt. No. 28. 9 II. LEGAL STANDARD 10 Section 1915(e)(2) mandates that the Court review an in forma pauperis complaint before 11 directing the United States Marshal to serve the complaint. Escobedo, 787 F.3d at 1234 & n.8. 12 The Court must dismiss a complaint if it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 13 Barren v. Harrington,

(9th Cir. 1998). 14 “The standard for determining whether a plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which 15 relief can be granted under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is the same as the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 12(b)(6) standard for failure to state a claim.” Watison v. Carter,

(9th Cir. 17 2012) (citing Lopez v. Smith,

, 1127–31 (9th Cir. 2000)). Therefore, to survive 18 screening under § 1915, the complaint must include a “short and plain statement,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 19 8(a)(2), and “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on 20 its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

(2009) (quotation omitted). A claim is facially 21 plausible when a plaintiff pleads “factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable 22 inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”

Further, plaintiff must 23 provide the grounds that entitle him to relief. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,

, 555 24 (2007). 25 Because Plaintiff is pro se, the Court construes the complaint liberally and affords him the 26 benefit of the doubt. See Karim-Panahi v. L.A. Police Dep’t,

(9th Cir. 1988); 27 cf. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e) (“Pleadings must be construed so as to do justice.”). That said, the Court is 1 fact, or unreasonable inferences. Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors,

(9th Cir. 2 2001). And even a “liberal interpretation of a . . . complaint may not supply essential elements of 3 the claim that were not initially pled.” See Ivey v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Alaska,

, 4 268 (9th Cir. 1982). This is because “pro se litigants are bound by the rules of procedure,” 5 Ghazali v. Moran,

(9th Cir. 1995), which require “a short and plain statement of 6 the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). 7 III. DISCUSSION 8 Plaintiff’s 236-page filing does not set forth “a short and plain statement of the claim 9 showing the pleader is entitled to relief.”1 Rule 8(a)(2). In fact, it veers demonstrably far from 10 this lodestar. The first ten pages – which the Court understands as the operative amended 11 complaint – are densely packed with statutory references and definitions, discussions of a 12 $300,000,000 bond for the Secretary of the Treasury (possibly issued by Plaintiff), various 13 representations of Wells Fargo’s misdeeds (in general, not as to him), and a description of the new 14 financial institution Plaintiff seeks to open. See AC at 2-12. This lengthy and unintelligible 15 discussion is followed by over two hundred pages of exhibits, which range from purported peace 16 declarations between Plaintiff and the United States concerning (among others) the Civil War, 17 indemnity and insurance agreements, tax forms, California Secretary of State filings, and assorted 18 records. See AC at 12-236. 19 Nowhere in these many pages is a clear and concise description of Plaintiff’s factual 20 allegations and asserted legal claims, which is what Rule 8 requires. The Amended Complaint 21 muddles rather than illuminates the allegations at issue, and leaves the Court completely in the 22 dark as to the connection between those allegations and the manifold exhibits. Uncertain as to 23 Plaintiff’s allegations, Defendant’s purported wrongdoing, and the legal claims at issue, the Court 24 readily concludes that Amended Complaint is a “far cry from a short and plain statement of claims 25 and the Court’s jurisdiction over them. A putative defendant would not know where to begin in 26 1 The first paragraph of the filing introduces doubt as to whether Plaintiff even conceives of the 27 filing as an amended complaint, or instead presents an “amicus curiae.” See AC at 2. 1 responding, and the Court cannot determine whether anything in this tangle of allegations is 2 sufficient to state a claim.” Arunachalam v. Davila, Case No. 18-cv-2488-JD,

10245911, at *1 (N.D. Cal. May 17, 2018) (dismissing pro se plaintiff's complaint with leave to 4 amend for failure to comply with Rule 8’s pleading requirements). 5 Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES the Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim 6 upon which relief can be granted under

(e)(2)(B)(ii), but will permit Plaintiff one 7 final opportunity to again amend his complaint. 8 The Court further DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to seal, Dkt. No. 28, which attempts to 9 shield from public disclosure the Amended Complaint and the associated exhibits in their entirety. 10 Plaintiff has not met his burden to show that “compelling reasons” exist to seal his complaint, 11 which is the pleading that forms the very “foundation of [his] lawsuit.” Align Tech., Inc. v. 12 SmileDirectClub, LLC, No. 23-CV00023- EMC,

at *1 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 9, 2023) 13 (“[T]he Court agrees . . . that there must be compelling reasons to seal any portion thereof because 14 ‘a complaint is the foundation of a lawsuit.’”). Local Rule 79-5 specifically states that “[m]otions 15 to seal entire pleadings or briefs are strongly disfavored and will be granted only in extraordinary 16 circumstances.” Since “extraordinary circumstances” are not present here, the Court declines to 17 seal the entire Amended Complaint, and DIRECTS Plaintiff to file by February 16, 2024 a 18 version of the Amended Complaint and accompanying exhibits that has targeted and appropriate 19 redactions. Appropriate redactions may, for instance, apply to social security numbers, sensitive 20 financial details, and other personal information not reasonably necessary for the public to 21 understand the nature of this lawsuit. If Plaintiff does not file a new version of the Amended 22 Complaint and associated exhibits with narrower redactions, the version on the docket will 23 become public. 24 IV. CONCLUSION 25 The Court DISMISSES Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint with leave to amend, Dkt. No. 28- 26 1, and DENIES the motion to seal, Dkt. No. 28. Plaintiff must file a redacted version of his 27 Amended Complaint and attached exhibits by February 16, 2024, and any second amended 1 complaint; if he is unable to present minimally viable pleadings, the Court will dismiss his 2 complaint with prejudice and close the case. Accordingly, in preparing this complaint: 3 • Plaintiff must comply with Rule 8’s pleading requirement. To do so, Plaintiff must amend 4 his Amended Complaint to state as clearly as possible the facts giving rise to each cause of 5 action and explain why each named defendant is being sued in connection with the alleged 6 wrongdoing. Since Rule 8(a) requires a short and plain statement of the legal claims, the 7 Court will not attempt to identify causes of actions or defendants from a narrative of 8 events. Any amended complaint must also address the deficiencies previously identified 9 by Judge Beeler in her screening order at Dkt. No. 18. 10 • Plaintiff is encouraged to use the Court’s form complaint, which is available on the Court's 11 website. See https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/pro-se-litigants/legal-help-center-templates- 12 packets/ (“General Complaint Packet”). If he does not use the Court’s form complaint and 13 generates his own pleading material instead, Plaintiff is DIRECTED not to add any 14 watermarks, which impair the Court’s ability to easily review his pleadings. 15 • Plaintiff is further DIRECTED to clearly distinguish between the second amended 16 complaint and any associated exhibits. For example, each exhibit should be separated by a 17 title page identifying the exhibit (e.g. “Exhibit A” or “Exhibit 1”), and no exhibits should 18 be included that are not relied upon and referenced in the complaint itself. 19 // 20 // 21 // 22 // 23 // 24 // 25 // 26 // 27 // 1 The Court again advises Plaintiff, who is representing himself, that he can seek assistance 2 at the Legal Help Center if he desires assistance complying with this order. The Legal Help Center 3 provides free information and limited-scope legal assistance to pro se litigants. More information 4 about the Legal Help Center is provided at http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/legal-help. Telephone 5 appointments may be scheduled either over the phone at (415) 782-8982 or by email at 6 || federalprobonoproject @ sfbar.org. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 || Dated: 1/29/2024 9 Alaypued 3 Mbp HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. 10 United States District Judge 11 12

© 15 16

= 17

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