Evans v. Myers et al

Filing 4

ORDER Directing Plaintiff to File an Amended Document, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 5/1/2017. Amended document due within 14 days. (Hall, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JOSH EVANS,
Plaintiff,

12
v.

13
14

AQSEPTENCE GROUP, et al.
Defendants.

15
16

) Case No.: 1:17-mc-0023 - DAD - JLT
)
) ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE AN
) AMENDED DOCUMENT
)
)
)
)
)
)

Josh Evans initiated this action by filing a document entitled “Actio In Factum: Final

17
18

Administrative Decision, Enforceable upon Filing and Return.” (Doc. 1 at 1) For the following

19

reasons, Mr. Evans is ORDERED to file an amended document, clarifying the claims and relief sought

20

in the action.

21

I.

22
23
24

Background
On April 12, 2017, Mr. Evans paid a filing fee, and apparently indicated it was paid on behalf of

Timothy James Myers, who he identifies as the “Claimant/Obligee.” (Doc. 1 at 1)
Mr. Evans asserts that he “is a sworn public official, representing the State of California while

25

having limited executive authority, conferred by the Secretary, to serve the People in a non-biased

26

manner.” (Doc. 1 at 1) He appears to allege that Timothy Myers entered into an agreement with

27

Aqseptence Group, Mike Mehmert, and Cambria Breitkreutz—who Mr. Evans identifies as

28

“Debtors/Obligors”—with the assistance of Mr. Evans. (See id. at 2-3) Mr. Evans asserts that he
1

1

“brings this action for filing, exemplification, and return of [the] record as a formally verified,

2

authoritative and enforceable judicial instrument.” (Id. at 4) Significantly, while it is less than clear

3

what the agreement entailed, Mr. Evans makes clear that he, in fact, was not a party to the alleged

4

agreement.

5

II.

Standing
As explained by the Supreme Court of the United States, “those who seek to invoke the

6
7

jurisdiction of the federal courts must satisfy the threshold requirement imposed by Article III of the

8

Constitution by alleging an actual case or controversy.” City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 101

9

(1983). “[T]he Constitution mandates that prior to our exercise of jurisdiction there exist a

10

constitutional ‘case or controversy,’ that the issues presented are ‘definite and concrete, not

11

hypothetical or abstract.’” Thomas v. Anchorage Equal Rights Comm’n, 220 F.3d 1134, 1138 (9th Cir.

12

2000) (quoting Railway Mail Assoc. v. Corsi, 326 U.S. 88, 93 (1945)). To satisfy the “case or

13

controversy” requirement, a plaintiff must demonstrate standing under Article III to bring an action.

14

Human Life of Wash., Inc. v. Brumsickle, 624 F.3d 990, 1000 (9th Cir. 2010).
To establish standing, a plaintiff “must demonstrate (1) an injury-in-fact, (2) causation, and (3)

15
16

a likelihood that the injury will be redressed by a decision in the plaintiff's favor.” Human Life, 624

17

F.3d at 1000 (citing Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992)). Plaintiff must allege

18

facts that support a conclusion that he, as opposed to other parties, has standing before the Court.

19

Although the Court does not doubt Plaintiff’s intent to help those he identifies as “the parties in fact,”

20

the information provided is insufficient to demonstrate satisfy the standing requirement.

21

III.

22

Representation of Others
The privilege to proceed pro se is personal and does not extend to act on the behalf of another

23

person or entity. Simon v. Hartford Life, Inc., 546 F.3d 661, 664 (9th Cir. 2008). “[A] non-attorney

24

may appear only in her own behalf.” Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 n.1 (9th Cir. 1995).

25

Thus, although a person who is not an attorney may appear pro se on his own behalf, see 28 U.S.C. §

26

1654, “he has no authority to appear as an attorney for others than himself.” McShane v. United

27

States, 366 F.2d 286, 288 (9th Cir. 1966). Because Mr. Evans appears to seek to enforce an agreement

28

between other parties, if he is not an attorney, he unable to represent these parties.
2

1
2

IV.

Conclusion and Order
Significantly, the Court has a duty to dismiss a case at any time it determines an action fails to

3

state a claim, “notwithstanding any filing fee that may have been paid.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).

4

Accordingly, a court “may act on its own initiative to note the inadequacy of a complaint and dismiss it

5

for failure to state a claim.” See Wong v. Bell, 642 F.2d 359, 361 (9th Cir. 1981) (citing 5 C. Wright &

6

A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 1357 at 593 (1963)). Because the Court cannot

7

determine what claims are being asserted or what Mr. Evans seeks to have the Court do, whether Mr.

8

Evans has standing, or even whether it has jurisdiction, the document filed by Mr. Evans is inadequate.

9

Accordingly, Mr. Evans will be granted leave to file an amended document curing the deficiencies

10

identified by the Court. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000) (dismissal of a pro se

11

complaint for failure to state a claim is proper only where it is obvious that the plaintiff cannot prevail

12

on the facts that she has alleged and that an opportunity to amend would be futile).

13

Based upon the foregoing, Mr. Evans is ORDERED to file an amended document addressing

14

the claims presented, relief sought, his standing, and the Court’s jurisdiction within fourteen days of the

15

date of service. Failure to file the amended document will result in a recommendation that the

16

matter be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with the Court’s order.

17
18
19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

May 1, 2017

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3