Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-06530/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-06530-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

United States District Court 

For the Northern District of California 

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 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

COLOURED PENTECOSTAL ASSEMBLIES 

OF WORLD REPUBLICANS; 

CHALEDEEANNKA DEBORAH ANN 

WILLIAMS GOYENS-BELL EBERWEIN, et 

al., 

 

 Plaintiffs, 

 

 v. 

HILLARY CLINTON a/o Vince 

Girdhari Chhabad, et al., 

 Defendants. 

________________________________/ 

No. C 16-6530 CW 

ORDER TO SHOW 

CAUSE WHY CASE 

SHOULD NOT BE 

DISMISSED FOR 

FAILURE TO STATE A 

CLAIM 

On November 8, 2016, pro se Plaintiffs Coloured Pentecostal 

Assemblies of World Republicans, Chaledeeannka Deborah Ann 

Williams Goyens-Bell Eberwein, Delina Roybal-De-Aguero-Koller, 

Artiss Connellly Bell, Robert D. Eberwein, Estate of Jack and 

Jeanett Oltouchs Heirs, and Paul G. Christensen filed a complaint 

against Hillary Clinton a/o Vince Girdhari Chhabad, Kimberly 

Colwell, and Jacqueline Shelton. The complaint was filed on the 

form for an employment discrimination complaint, but the word 

“employment” is crossed out. The form indicates that the action 

is brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 

for employment discrimination and Plaintiffs checked the boxes for 

the following “acts complained of”: “Failure to employ me,” 

“Termination of my employment,” “Failure to promote me” and “Other 

acts as specified below.” Plaintiffs further indicated that the 

alleged discriminatory conduct was based on race, religion, sex, 

national origin and other grounds. 

Case 4:16-cv-06530-CW Document 3 Filed 11/29/16 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court 

For the Northern District of California 

 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 

As an initial matter, the Court notes that only individuals 

may proceed pro se. See 28 U.S.C. § 1654. Accordingly, 

Plaintiffs Coloured Pentecostal Assemblies of World Republicans 

and the Estate of Jack and Jeanett Oltouchs Heirs may only pursue 

their claims if represented by counsel. Moreover, to the extent 

the Court is able to understand the allegations in the complaint, 

they do not appear to support any claim for employment 

discrimination. Rather, the complaint appears to allege that 

other judges of this court acted improperly in other cases 

involving Plaintiff Robert Eberwein. In one of those cases, 

Lorenzo Commons LLC v. Eberwein, 16-4588, Judge Chen remanded an 

unlawful detainer action that Eberwein removed from state court. 

In 3109 King St Property Management v. Deutsche Bank Americas, 16-

3219, Judge Chhabria dismissed Eberwein’s complaint because it 

failed to describe how the defendants’ actions harmed Eberwein, or 

the other plaintiff in the case, 3109 King St. Property 

Management. Instead, the complaint involved the defendants’ 

alleged eviction of Darrick Sterling from another property. 

In this case, Plaintiffs allege that Judge Chhabria “did not 

correctly read the fee waiver applications” in the case before 

him. Plaintiffs cannot bring a claim, seeking review by the 

undersigned of the decision of another judge of this court. 

Moreover, the undersigned notes that the fee waiver application in 

the case before Judge Chhabria was granted and the complaint was 

dismissed for failure to state a claim. 

Plaintiffs have failed to identify any legal basis for their 

claims or to allege “sufficent factual matter, accepted as true, 

to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” 

Case 4:16-cv-06530-CW Document 3 Filed 11/29/16 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court 

For the Northern District of California 

 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 

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Accordingly, the 

Court orders Plaintiffs to show cause why their complaint should 

not be dismissed for failure to state a claim. Any response to 

this order to show cause shall be filed by December 20, 2016. If 

Plaintiffs fail to respond to this order, their complaint will be 

dismissed for failure to prosecute. In addition, if Plaintiffs 

wish to pursue claims on behalf of the Coloured Pentecostal 

Assemblies of World Republicans and the Estate of Jack and Jeanett 

Oltouchs Heirs, they must retain counsel. If an attorney does not 

enter an appearance on behalf of these entities by December 20, 

2016, the Court will dismiss their claims.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: November 29, 2016 CLAUDIA WILKEN 

United States District Judge 

Case 4:16-cv-06530-CW Document 3 Filed 11/29/16 Page 3 of 3