Swann v. Intel Problems & Solutions et al

Filing 24

SCREENING ORDER re 1 Complaint filed by Blake O'bryan Swann; ORDER CONTINUING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore on 3/11/2025. Amended Pleadings(Complaint) due by 4/11/2025. Case Manage ment Statement due by 7/29/2025. Initial Case Management Conference set for 3/18/2025 is continued to 8/5/2025 01:30 PM in Oakland, - Videoconference Only. This proceeding will be held via a Zoom webinar.Webinar Access: All counse l, members of the public, and media may access the webinar information at https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/kaw General Order 58. Persons granted access to court proceedings held by telephone or videoconference are reminded that photographing, recording, and rebroadcasting of court proceedings, including screenshots or other visual copying of a hearing, is absolutely prohibited.Zoom Guidance and Setup: https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/zoom/. (klh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/12/2025)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)copy placed in outgoing mail on 3/12/2025.

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

BLAKE O'BRYAN SWANN,
Plaintiff,

8

United States District Court
Northern District of California

9

Case No. 4:23-cv-06625-KAW
SCREENING ORDER REVIEWING
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT; ORDER
CONTINUING CASE MANAGEMENT
CONFERENCE

v.

10

INTEL PROBLEMS & SOLUTIONS, et al.,

11

Defendants.

Re: Dkt. No. 1

12
13

On December 26, 2023, Plaintiff Blake O’Bryan Swann filed this civil action and

14

application to proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff received several extensions of time to file an

15

amended application to proceed in forma pauperis, which was ultimately granted on February 20,

16

2025. (Dkt. No. 23.) The Court now screens Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915,

17

and, for the reasons set forth below, concludes that the operative complaint is deficient.

18

I.

LEGAL STANDARD

19

The in forma pauperis statute provides that the Court shall dismiss the case if at any time

20

the Court determines that the allegation of poverty is untrue, or that the action (1) is frivolous or

21

malicious, (2) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief

22

against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).

23

A complaint is frivolous under Section 1915 where there is no subject matter jurisdiction.

24

See Castillo v. Marshall, 207 F.3d 15, 15 (9th Cir. 1997) (citation omitted); see also Pratt v. Sumner,

25

807 F.2d 817, 819 (9th Cir. 19987) (recognizing the general proposition that a complaint should be

26

dismissed as frivolous on Section 1915 review where subject matter jurisdiction is lacking).

27

A complaint may also be dismissed for failure to state a claim, because Section 1915(e)(2)

28

parallels the language of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122,

1

1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000). The complaint, therefore, must allege facts that plausibly establish the

2

defendant’s liability. See Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-57 (2007). When the

3

complaint has been filed by a pro se plaintiff, courts must “construe the pleadings liberally . . . to

4

afford the petitioner the benefit of any doubt.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir.

5

2010)(citations omitted). Upon dismissal, pro se plaintiffs proceeding in forma pauperis must be

6

given leave to “amend their complaint unless it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the

7

complaint could not be cured by amendment.” Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1235 n.9 (9th

8

Cir. 1984) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-

9

31 (9th Cir. 2000).

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

II.

DISCUSSION

11

As courts of limited jurisdiction, “federal courts have an independent obligation to ensure

12

that they do not exceed the scope of their jurisdiction.” Henderson ex rel. Henderson v. Shinseki,

13

562 U.S. 428, 434 (2011); Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1116 (9th Cir. 2004) (noting

14

that district courts are “obligated to consider sua sponte whether [they] have subject matter

15

jurisdiction”). There are two bases for federal subject matter jurisdiction: (1) federal question

16

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and (2) diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. A

17

district court has federal question jurisdiction in “all civil actions arising under the Constitution,

18

laws, or treaties of the United States.” Id. at § 1331. A cause of action “arises under federal law

19

only when the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint raises issues of federal law.” Hansen v. Blue

20

Cross of Cal., 891 F.2d 1384, 1386 (9th Cir. 1989). A district court has diversity jurisdiction

21

“where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000 . . . and is between citizens

22

of different states, or citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state.” Id.

23

Here, Plaintiff appears to be alleging that a computer he purchased and “sent off” never

24

returned. (See Compl., Dkt. No. 1 at 4.) Plaintiff contends that this is a “consumer law” and that

25

he suffered economic and emotional distress damages because of Defendants’ actions. Id. at 3-4.

26

Plaintiff, however, cites to an “affidavit of complaint” to provide the statement of facts, but no

27

such document has been filed. See id. at 2. As a result, the Court cannot determine the facts which

28

2

1

form the basis of this lawsuit. Moreover, Plaintiff needs to identify which consumer law he is

2

alleging for each claim— listing “consumer law” for the claim is not sufficient. Thus, Plaintiff

3

has failed to set forth “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled

4

to relief” as required by Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Accordingly, the Court concludes that the complaint is insufficient to satisfy Section 1915

5
6

review.
III.

7

For the reasons set forth above, the allegations in Plaintiff’s complaint are insufficient

8

United States District Court
Northern District of California

CONCLUSION

9

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Thus, Plaintiff must clearly provide the legal and factual basis for

10

all claims and must do so by filing an amended complaint by April 11, 2025. If Plaintiff fails to

11

file an amended complaint by that date, or the amended complaint fails to cure all defects, the case

12

will be reassigned to a district judge with the report and recommendation that either the complaint

13

be dismissed in whole or in part or the case be dismissed in its entirety.

14

In amending the complaint, Plaintiff may wish to contact the Federal Pro Bono Project’s

15

Help Desk for assistance—a free service for pro se litigants—by calling [phone] to make

16

an appointment. While the Help Desk does not provide legal representation, a licensed attorney

17

may assist Plaintiff in determining whether there are viable claims, and how to properly plead

18

them.

19

Plaintiff may also wish to consult a manual the court has adopted to assist pro se litigants

20

in presenting their case. This manual, and other free information for pro se litigants, is available

21

online at: https://cand.uscourts.gov/pro-se-litigants/.

22

Finally, the Court continues the case management conference set for March 18, 2025 to

23

August 5, 2025 at 1:30 p.m. Case management statements are due on or before July 29, 2025.

24
25

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 11, 2025
__________________________________
KANDIS A. WESTMORE
United States Magistrate Judge

26
27
28

3