Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01420/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01420-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1442 Petition for Removal

---

1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff Jeremiah Balik initiated this action by filing a complaint against Congressman Kevin 

McCarthy in Kern County Superior Court on August 12, 2015. (Doc. 1 at-1 at 2) Defendant filed a 

Notice of Removal from the state court on September 18, 2015 (Doc. 1), thereby initiating the matter 

in this Court. Because, as discussed below, the Court finds Plaintiff’s claims are fanciful and 

frivolous, it is recommended that Plaintiff’s complaint be DISMISSED without leave to amend.

I. Screening Requirement

Although Plaintiff has not requested to proceed in forma pauperis in this Court, the Kern 

County Superior Court granted him this status on September 3, 2015. (Doc. 1-4 at 2) When a plaintiff

proceeds in forma pauperis, the Court is required to review the complaint, and shall dismiss the case at 

any time if the Court determines the action or appeal is “frivolous, malicious or fails to state a claim 

on which relief may be granted; or . . . seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from 

such relief.” 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2). 

JEREMIAH BALIK,

 Plaintiff,

v.

HON. KEVIN MCCARTHY,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:15-cv-01420 - AWI - JLT

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT 

WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND

Case 1:15-cv-01420-AWI-JLT Document 11 Filed 10/01/15 Page 1 of 4
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

A claim is frivolous “when the facts alleged arise to the level of the irrational or the wholly 

incredible, whether or not there are judicially noticeable facts available to contradict them.” Denton v. 

Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992); see also Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325, 328 (1989) 

(finding claims may be dismissed as “frivolous” where the allegations are “fanciful” or “describe[e] 

fantastic or delusional scenarios”).

II. Pleading Requirements

General rules for pleading complaints are governed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A 

complaint must include a statement affirming the court’s jurisdiction, “a short and plain statement of 

the claim showing the pleader is entitled to relief; and . . . a demand for the relief sought, which may 

include relief in the alternative or different types of relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). The Federal Rules 

adopt a flexible pleading policy, and pro se pleadings are held to “less stringent standards” than those 

drafted by attorneys. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 521-21 (1972).

A complaint must state the elements of the plaintiff’s claim in a plain and succinct manner. 

Jones v. Cmty Redevelopment Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). The purpose of a complaint 

is to give the defendant fair notice of the claims against him, and the grounds upon which the 

complaint stands. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 512 (2002). The Supreme Court noted,

Rule 8 does not require detailed factual allegations, but it demands 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. Nor does a complaint suffice if it tenders naked assertions devoid of further 

factual enhancement.

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 

Conclusory and vague allegations do not support a cause of action. Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 

266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). The Court clarified further,

[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to “state a claim 

to relief that is plausible on its face.” [Citation]. A claim has facial plausibility when the 

plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference

that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. [Citation]. The plausibility 

standard is not akin to a “probability requirement,” but it asks for more than a sheer 

possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully. [Citation]. Where a complaint pleads 

facts that are “merely consistent with” a defendant’s liability, it “stops short of the line 

between possibility and plausibility of ‘entitlement to relief.’

Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citations omitted). If factual allegations are well-pled, a court should assume 

Case 1:15-cv-01420-AWI-JLT Document 11 Filed 10/01/15 Page 2 of 4
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

their truth and determine whether the facts would make the plaintiff entitled to relief; conclusions in the 

pleading are not entitled to the same assumption of truth. Id. 

III. Plaintiff’s Allegations

Plaintiff contends Congressman Upton learned he was “interacting with Super Model Kate 

Upton” on Twitter and “had a sophisticated way to communicate [with] her on Instagram,” which 

angered Defendant. (Doc. 1-1 at 9) According to Plaintiff, Upton did not want him dating a 

supermodel, and so Upton “called in a favor” with Congressman McCarthy and Chocolate Shoppe Ice 

Cream CEO David Deadman, “and told them not do to do business with [Plaintiff].” (Id.) He alleges 

also that Congressmen Upton and McCarthy called in favors to have “various law enforcement 

agencies, to have them unlawfully patrol around [Plaintiff]” and for Plaintiff’s phone to be “tampered 

with by numerous carriers.” (Id. at 11, 12) 

IV. Discussion and Analysis

Based upon the foregoing factual allegations, Plaintiff asserts Defendant is liable for harassment 

in violation of California Code of Civil Procedure 527.6, which “defines ‘harassment’ as ‘unlawful 

violence, a credible threat of violence, or a knowing and willful course of conduct directed at a specific 

person that seriously alarms, annoys, or harasses the person, and that serves no legitimate purpose.’” 

Rockridge Trust v. Wells Fargo, N.A., 985 F. Supp.2d 1110, 1155 (N.D. Cal. 2013) (quoting Cal. Civ. 

P. § 527.6) In addition, the alleged actions “must be such that would cause a reasonable person to 

suffer substantial emotional distress, and must actually cause substantial emotional distress to the 

[plaintiff].” (Id.)

Here, Plaintiff has not alleged any acts of violence, threats of violence, or conduct that 

“seriously alarms, annoys, or harasses the person” by Congressman McCarthy. Furthermore, the 

allegations—namely, that Congressman McCarthy has “called in favors” with individuals to law 

enforcement officers to follow Plaintiff or is responsible for the Chocolate Shoppe Ice Cream CEO 

deciding to not do business with Plaintiff—are have no factual support. In short, the Court finds the 

allegations—that Plaintiff has a social relationship with a super model, that a Congressman has such a 

pronounced interest in Plaintiff’s social networking life as to become angry, that, in this angry state, the 

Congressman engaged the assistance of another Congressman and an ice cream store executive to 

Case 1:15-cv-01420-AWI-JLT Document 11 Filed 10/01/15 Page 3 of 4
4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

thwart the social networking relationship—to be lacking all credibility and all plausibility. Iqbal, 556 

U.S. at 678. Accordingly, the Court finds Plaintiff’s allegations are fanciful, and lack an arguable basis 

in fact. See Denton, 504 U.S. at 32-33.

V. Findings and Recommendations

Plaintiff fails to state a cognizable claim for civil harassment in violation of California law. 

Moreover, given the fanciful nature of Plaintiff’s claims, the Court finds leave to amend would be 

futile. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679 (noting that a court should “draw on its judicial experience and 

common sense” to determine whether a claim is plausible); Denton, 504 U.S. at 32-33 (a court may 

dismiss a claim as frivolous if the alleged facts are “clearly baseless,” “fanciful,” or “fantastic”); Lopez 

v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000) (“Under Ninth Circuit case law, district courts are only 

required to grant leave to amend if a complaint can possibly be saved. Courts are not required to grant 

leave to amend if a complaint lacks merit entirely”). 

Based upon the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED:

1. Plaintiff’s complaint be DISMISSED without leave to amend; and

2. The Clerk of Court be directed to close this matter.

These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local 

Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within fourteen 

days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, any party may file written 

objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 

Findings and Recommendations.” The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the 

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 

(9th Cir. 1991); Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 834 (9th Cir. 2014).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 1, 2015 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01420-AWI-JLT Document 11 Filed 10/01/15 Page 4 of 4