Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01470/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01470-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:101 Copyright Infringement

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSHUA W. HENKE,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE WORLD ORDER,

Defendant.

15-cv-1470 LJO EPG

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT 

WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND

ORDER DIRECTING THE CLERK OF THE 

COURT TO CLOSE THIS ACTION

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff, Joshua W. Henke, (“Plaintiff”) appearing pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a 

complaint and names “the World Order” as the Defendant. (Doc. 1). The complaint is incoherent 

but appears to summarize several of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff does not 

articulate any causes of action, or request any relief. Attached to the complaint is a Motion to 

Seal. (Doc.1). Upon a review of the pleadings, Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed without leave to 

amend, and Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal is denied.

II. DISCUSSION

a. Legal Standard

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court must conduct an initial review of the Complaint 

Case 1:15-cv-01470-LJO-EPG Document 9 Filed 12/18/15 Page 1 of 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

2

to determine whether it “state[s] a claim on which relief may be granted,” is “frivolous or 

malicious,” or “seek[s] monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” If 

the Court determines that the Complaint fails to state a claim, it must be dismissed. Id. Leave to 

amend may be granted to the extent that the deficiencies of the Complaint can be cured by 

amendment. Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995). Courts deem a complaint 

“frivolous” when it lacks “basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 

(1989). In other words, a complaint is frivolous where the litigant asserts “not only the inarguable 

legal conclusion, but also the fanciful factual allegation.” Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 325.

To state a claim, a complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim 

showing that the pleader is entitled to relief . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual 

allegations are not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, 

supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 

(2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Plaintiff must set forth 

“sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft 

v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 663 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). While factual allegations are 

accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id. at 678.

To determine whether a complaint states an actionable claim, the Court must accept the 

allegations in the complaint as true, Hosp. Bldg. Co. v. Trs. of Rex Hosp., 425 U.S. 738, 740 

(1976), construe pro se pleadings liberally in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff, Resnick v. 

Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000), and resolve all doubts in the Plaintiff’s favor. Jenkins 

v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). Pleadings of pro se plaintiffs “must be held to less 

stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 

(9th Cir. 2010) (holding that pro se complaints should continue to be liberally construed after 

Iqbal). 

b. Analysis

Here, Plaintiff’s complaint merely summarizes several Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

and fails to articulate any causes of action. Therefore, the complaint is frivolous under 

1915(e)(2)(B) because it is devoid of factual support or arguable question of law, and appears 

Case 1:15-cv-01470-LJO-EPG Document 9 Filed 12/18/15 Page 2 of 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

3

“fanciful,” “fantastic,” or “delusional.” See Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327-28. No amendment will 

cure this deficiency. Furthermore, Plaintiff’s complaint contains no private or confidential 

information that would warrant sealing. 

III. Conclusion

Based on the above, Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed without leave to amend as it is 

frivolous and it fails to state a claim. The Motion to Seal is also DENIED. The Clerk of the 

Court is directed to close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 18, 2015 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01470-LJO-EPG Document 9 Filed 12/18/15 Page 3 of 3