Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-04070/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-04070-0/pdf.json

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

---

1

Case No. 16-CV-04070-LHK 

ORDER DENYING APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS, DENYING MOTION FOR 

INJUNCTION AND MOTION FOR ORDER OF REMOVAL, AND QUASHING SUBPOENAS

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

JEREMIAH W. BALIK,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF CEDAR FALLS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-CV-04070-LHK 

ORDER DENYING APPLICATION TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS, 

DENYING MOTION FOR INJUNCTION

AND MOTION FOR ORDER OF 

REMOVAL, AND QUASHING 

SUBPOENAS

Re: Dkt. Nos. 2, 15, 43, 56

Plaintiff Jeremiah Balik (“Plaintiff”) brings this action against the City of Cedar Falls, 

Iowa; the City of San Jose, California; the City of Ventura, California; the City of Santa Clara, 

California; the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department; the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s

Department; the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department; and Next Generation Wireless 

(collectively, “Defendants”). 

Plaintiff’s complaint alleges two causes of action—one for “Civil Rights Violations” and 

another for “unlawful arrest, conspiracy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.” ECF 

No. 1 (“Compl.”) at 4. According to Plaintiff, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel and U.S. 

Congressman Fred Upton have led a nationwide scheme to deter Plaintiff from pursuing his 

Case 5:16-cv-04070-LHK Document 58 Filed 08/26/16 Page 1 of 14
2

Case No. 16-CV-04070-LHK 

ORDER DENYING APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS, DENYING MOTION FOR 

INJUNCTION AND MOTION FOR ORDER OF REMOVAL, AND QUASHING SUBPOENAS

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

Northern District of California

girlfriend, supermodel Samantha Hoopes. Id. at 9. Emanuel, Upton, and Hoopes are not parties in 

the instant action. 

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, which Plaintiff 

filed on July 20, 2016. ECF No. 2 (“Mot.”). On July 26, 2016, Plaintiff filed a supplemental brief 

providing additional details regarding his in forma pauperis application. ECF No. 15. Having 

considered Plaintiff’s application, his supplemental brief, the relevant law, and the record in this 

case, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s application. The Court finds that Plaintiff is able to pay the 

$400.00 filing fee and that Plaintiff’s allegations of a nationwide scheme orchestrated by Emanuel 

and Upton are factually and legally frivolous. The initial case management conference, currently 

set for October 19, 2016, at 2:00 PM, is VACATED. 

In addition, on August 24 and 25, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion for an injunction against 

California Governor Jerry Brown and a motion for an order granting the removal from state court 

of a traffic citation Plaintiff received in Santa Clara County, respectively. ECF Nos. 43 & 56. 

These motions are both DENIED. Governor Brown is not a party to this case, and there is no 

basis for removal of Plaintiff’s traffic citation. 

Plaintiff has also filed 18 proposed subpoenas since the beginning of this action, many of 

which have been directed at entities that are not parties and are not relevant to this action. 

Plaintiff, for instance, directed a proposed subpoena to Piquito Mas Chatsworth, a Mexican 

restaurant in California, ECF No. 23; a proposed subpoena for Louise Ward, agent to actors 

Channing and Jenna Tatum ECF No. 51; and a proposed subpoena for Instagram HQ, ECF No. 55. 

These proposed subpoenas are improper and are QUASHED. ECF Nos. 10, 14, 16, 19, 21, 23, 29, 

31, 32, 34, 40, 44, 45, 46, 51, 53, 54, 55. 

I. LEGAL STANDARD

Individuals must pay a $400.00 filing fee to commence a civil action in the Northern 

District of California. Under federal law, however, a court “may authorize the commencement” of 

a civil suit without prepayment of the filing fee if the plaintiff submits an affidavit which 

Case 5:16-cv-04070-LHK Document 58 Filed 08/26/16 Page 2 of 14
3

Case No. 16-CV-04070-LHK 

ORDER DENYING APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS, DENYING MOTION FOR 

INJUNCTION AND MOTION FOR ORDER OF REMOVAL, AND QUASHING SUBPOENAS

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

Northern District of California

“includes a statement of all assets” and which shows that plaintiff is “unable to pay such fees or 

give security therefor.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Leave to proceed in forma pauperis is properly 

granted only when the plaintiff has both demonstrated poverty and presented a claim that is neither

factually nor legally frivolous. See Tripati v. First Nat’l Bank & Trust, 821 F.2d 1368, 1370 (9th 

Cir. 1987); accord Ogunsalu v. Nair, 117 F. App’x 522, 523 (9th Cir. 2004) (“To qualify for in 

forma pauperis status, a civil litigant must demonstrate both that the litigant is unable to pay court

fees and that the claims he or she seeks to pursue are not frivolous.”). Thus, a court “may deny 

leave to proceed in forma pauperis at the outset if it appears from the face of the proposed 

complaint that the action is frivolous or without merit.” 821 F.2d at 1370. “The granting or denial 

of leave to proceed in forma pauperis in civil cases is within the sound discretion of the district 

court.” Venable v. Meyers, 500 F.2d 1215, 1216 (9th Cir. 1974) (per curiam).

II. DISCUSSION

A. Ability to Pay

Plaintiff receives $2,906.83 per month in Veterans Administration benefits, and owns 

Shteren Technology, LLC (“Shteren”), a company based in Santa Monica, California. Mot. at 1, 

12. His in forma pauperis application does not state how much money Plaintiff makes at Shteren. 

Plaintiff also earns money through “[l]itigation”—he earned $1,124.00 in the past twelve months 

as a result of settling two lawsuits, and has another lawsuit pending. Id. at 2. Plaintiff owns a 

2011 Toyota Prius. Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis application reveals that he has two bank accounts 

at Wells Fargo which, as of July 8, 2016, had a total combined balance of $2,135.39. Id. at 6. 

Finally, Plaintiff has a savings account at BMO Harris Bank which, as of June 30, 2016, had a 

balance of $22.67. Id. at 29. 

Plaintiff’s application lists a number of different estimated monthly expenses, with most of 

his expenses spent on utilities ($1,000.00), food ($850.00), and car payments ($423.76). 

Altogether, Plaintiff’s monthly estimated expenses total $2,839.76. Id. at 3. From June 8, 2016 to 

July 8, 2016, Plaintiff deposited $3,441.98 and withdrew $2,960.88 from his Wells Fargo 

Case 5:16-cv-04070-LHK Document 58 Filed 08/26/16 Page 3 of 14
4

Case No. 16-CV-04070-LHK 

ORDER DENYING APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS, DENYING MOTION FOR 

INJUNCTION AND MOTION FOR ORDER OF REMOVAL, AND QUASHING SUBPOENAS

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

Northern District of California

accounts. Id. at 14–15.

Under these facts, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not sufficiently demonstrated an 

inability to pay to proceed in forma pauperis. Although 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) “does not itself 

define what constitutes insufficient assets,” a plaintiff seeking in forma pauperis status “must 

allege poverty with some particularity, definiteness and certainty.” Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 

F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted). 

Plaintiff has failed to meet this bar. As noted above, Plaintiff’s statement shows, among 

other things, (1) that he earns at least $2,906.83 per month in Veterans Administration benefits;

(2) that he made at least $3,441.98 in bank deposits between June 8 and July 8, 2016; (3) that he 

owns a 2011 Toyota Prius; (4) that he is employed and owns a company; (5) that he has made 

$1,124.00 in litigation settlements over the past year, and may make more in the future; (5) that he 

has three bank accounts with $2,158.06 in total assets; and (6) that his monthly income generally 

exceeds his monthly expenses. Taken together, these circumstances indicate that Plaintiff has 

sufficient assets to pay the one-time $400.00 fee necessary to file a civil action in the Northern 

District of California. 

Case law supports the Court’s decision to deny Plaintiff in forma pauperis status. In Wade 

v. American Federation of Government Employees, 2006 WL 3645610, *1 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 12, 

2006), the district court denied in forma pauperis status based on the fact that plaintiff’s income 

was approximately $2,500.00 per month and his expenses were approximately $1,845.00 per 

month. In Said v. Tehama County, 2013 WL 1310679, *1 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 26, 2013), the district 

court denied in forma pauperis status to a plaintiff whose “take home pay” was $2,345.00 per 

month. Finally, in Theede v. Veterans Administration, 927 F.2d 610, *1 (9th Cir. 1991) (Table), 

the Ninth Circuit upheld the district court’s decision to deny in forma pauperis status based on a 

household’s monthly income of $2,731.00. Notably, none of these courts even examined 

plaintiff’s other assets, such as whether plaintiff had a bank account, a car, or income from 

litigation settlements. 

Case 5:16-cv-04070-LHK Document 58 Filed 08/26/16 Page 4 of 14
5

Case No. 16-CV-04070-LHK 

ORDER DENYING APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS, DENYING MOTION FOR 

INJUNCTION AND MOTION FOR ORDER OF REMOVAL, AND QUASHING SUBPOENAS

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

Northern District of California

Plaintiff’s supplemental brief, which Plaintiff filed on July 26, 2016, contends that the 

Court should grant him in forma pauperis status because five other district courts in California 

have done so. This contention lacks merit. 

Indeed, in two of these cases, Plaintiff did not even apply for in forma pauperis status. See 

Balik v. Upton, 15-CV-1419 (E.D. Cal.); Balik v. McCarthy, 15-CV-1420 (E.D. Cal.). In the 

remaining cases, Plaintiff stated that he paid between $1,500.00 and $2,200.00 per month in rent. 

See Balik v. Sprint/United Mgmt, Co., 16-CV-1106 (S.D. Cal.), ECF No. 9 at 2 ($2,015.00 in 

monthly rent); Balik v. ToyTalk, Inc., 15-CV-4556 (N.D. Cal.), ECF No. 3 at 3 ($1,500.00–

$2,200.00 in monthly rent); Balik v. Spiral Toys, Inc., 15-CV-8812 (C.D. Cal.), ECF No. 2 at 2 

($1,500.00–$2,200.00 in monthly rent). In addition, Plaintiff did not, in these three cases, report 

the $1,124.00 that he had earned through litigation settlements. 

On the other hand, in the instant case, Plaintiff does not provide a figure or even a range as 

to his monthly rent. The application simply states that Plaintiff’s rent “varies,” with a crossed out 

zero immediately next to the word “varies.” Mot. at 3. Plaintiff, despite submitting both an initial 

in forma pauperis application and a supplemental brief, has provided no other documentation as to 

his current monthly rent. Moreover, Plaintiff has made $1,124.00 in the past year in litigation

settlements. 

Thus, Plaintiff’s circumstances—notably, his monthly rent and litigation earnings—have 

changed. This difference in circumstances distinguishes Plaintiff’s situation in the instant case 

from those in Sprint, ToyTalk, and Spiral Toys. Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to show that he 

can not pay the required $400.00 filing fee. Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis application is therefore 

DENIED on the basis of his ability to pay. 

B. Frivolousness and Vexatious Litigant

1. Plaintiff’s Allegations of a Nationwide Scheme by Rahm Emanuel and Fred Upton 

In addition to being able to pay the required $400.00 filing fee, the Court finds Plaintiff’s 

complaint to be factually and legally frivolous and denies in forma pauperis status on this basis as 

Case 5:16-cv-04070-LHK Document 58 Filed 08/26/16 Page 5 of 14
6

Case No. 16-CV-04070-LHK 

ORDER DENYING APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS, DENYING MOTION FOR 

INJUNCTION AND MOTION FOR ORDER OF REMOVAL, AND QUASHING SUBPOENAS

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

Northern District of California

well. In the instant case, Plaintiff alleges that he was the subject of a nationwide scheme 

orchestrated by Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel (“Emanuel”) and U.S. Congressman Fred Upton 

(“Upton”) to prevent Plaintiff from pursuing his girlfriend, supermodel Samantha Hoopes 

(“Hoopes”). Compl. at 9. 

As part of this scheme, Plaintiff alleges that he was patrolled by police officers in Cedar 

Falls, Iowa; and San Jose, Santa Clara, Los Angeles, Ventura, Santa Barbara, and San Diego, 

California. Plaintiff, for instance, admits that he “made an illegal or unlawful u-turn in front of 

[the] Santa Clara [Police Department] and engaged in a conversation about” the police 

department’s decision to set up a “stop area” outside Levi’s Stadium, a Santa Clara sports venue. 

Id. at 13. Plaintiff was subsequently ticketed for violating a traffic law, “plans to remove [the] 

ticket to Federal Court,” and states—without explanation—that this “[i]ncident implicates US 

Congressman Fred Upton.” Id. at 14. In addition to police patrolling, Plaintiff states that he 

applied to work at Next Generation Wireless, a telecommunications store in Cedar Falls, Iowa, but 

was denied a position. Id. at 7. 

The instant case is at least the sixth time that Plaintiff has alleged that Emanuel and Upton 

have worked together to prevent or deter Plaintiff from pursuing his alleged girlfriend, Samantha 

Hoopes, by subjecting Plaintiff to unlawful police conduct or by preventing Plaintiff from 

realizing economic opportunities. Every court to have previously considered Plaintiff’s claims has 

found them to be meritless. 

In Balik v. Sprint/United Management, a case that Plaintiff filed in the Southern District of 

California, Plaintiff was denied employment by Defendants Sprint/United Management Co.; Time 

Warner Cable, Inc.; and Telephone and Data Systems, Inc. Plaintiff’s allegations in the 

Sprint/United Management case mirror those that he has made in the instant case as to Next 

Generation Wireless. In Sprint/United Management, for example, Plaintiff alleged that “either 

Congressman Fred Upton or Mayor Rahm Emanuel or BOTH abused their authority and called 

[Defendants] to block and prevent Plaintiff from getting interviewed and hired at 

Case 5:16-cv-04070-LHK Document 58 Filed 08/26/16 Page 6 of 14
7

Case No. 16-CV-04070-LHK 

ORDER DENYING APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS, DENYING MOTION FOR 

INJUNCTION AND MOTION FOR ORDER OF REMOVAL, AND QUASHING SUBPOENAS

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

Northern District of California

telecommunications companies.” 16-CV-1106 (S.D. Cal.), ECF No. 9 at 4 (ellipses omitted). In 

initially screening Plaintiff’s complaint as part of Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis application, the 

Sprint/United Management court found that Plaintiff’s allegations “fail[ed] to state a claim on 

which relief can be granted,” and dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice on August 2, 

2016. Id.

In Balik v. ToyTalk, a patent infringement case filed in the Northern District of California, 

Plaintiff likewise accused Emanuel and Upton of “unduly us[ing] their influence on various third 

parties and interfer[ing] with [Plaintiff’s] discussions regarding his patent, licensing agreements, 

and potential job opportunities.” 16-CV-4556 (N.D. Cal.), ECF No. 62 at 2. The district court 

found Plaintiff’s claims without merit and dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice on June 

10, 2016. 16-CV-4556 (N.D. Cal.), ECF No. 84. 

In Balik v. Spiral Toys, Inc., a patent infringement case filed in the Central District of 

California, Plaintiff once again alleged that Emanuel and Upton had used their positions to deny 

Plaintiff economic opportunities in order to disrupt Plaintiff’s relationship with Hoopes. 15-CV8112 (C.D. Cal.), ECF No. 1 at 4–6. The district court dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint with 

prejudice on February 1, 2016. 15-CV-8112 (C.D. Cal.), ECF No. 52.

Finally, in Balik v. Upton and Balik v. McCarthy, two cases filed in the Eastern District of 

California, Plaintiff argued that Upton “did not want him dating a supermodel, and so Upton 

called in a favor with [U.S.] Congressman [Kevin] McCarthy and Chocolate Shoppe Ice Cream 

CEO David Deadman, and told them not do to do business with Plaintiff.” 15-CV-1420 (E.D. 

Cal.), ECF No. 11 at 3 (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted). Plaintiff also alleged—as 

in the instant case—that Upton “called in favors to have various law enforcement agencies . . . 

unlawfully patrol” around Plaintiff. Id. at 2 (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted).

In the process of reviewing Plaintiff’s complaints in Balik v. Upton and Balik v. McCarthy, 

the Eastern District of California judge, who presided over both cases, described Plaintiff’s

allegations as being “fanciful” and “lack[ing] an arguable basis in fact.” Id. at 4. As the district 

Case 5:16-cv-04070-LHK Document 58 Filed 08/26/16 Page 7 of 14
8

Case No. 16-CV-04070-LHK 

ORDER DENYING APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS, DENYING MOTION FOR 

INJUNCTION AND MOTION FOR ORDER OF REMOVAL, AND QUASHING SUBPOENAS

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

Northern District of California

judge summarized: “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 thwart the social 

networking relationship—to be lacking all credibility and all plausibility.” Id. at 3. The district 

judge did not specifically address Plaintiff’s police patrolling allegations, other than to state that 

Plaintiff had not “alleged any acts of violence, threats of violence, or conduct that seriously 

alarms, annoys, or harasses,” in violation of California law. Id. at 3 (internal quotation marks 

omitted).1 Accordingly, the district judge dismissed both complaints with prejudice on October 

20, 2015. 

To summarize, Plaintiff has filed five other actions in federal courts in California. Like the 

instant case, the crux of these five actions has been that Emanuel and Upton have worked together 

to prevent or deter Plaintiff from pursuing his alleged girlfriend, Hoopes. Emanuel and Upton 

have done so by preventing Plaintiff from realizing economic opportunities or by subjecting 

Plaintiff to unlawful police conduct. In these five actions, Plaintiff provided no evidence of this 

nationwide scheme, all five district courts found Plaintiff’s claims to be meritless. Plaintiff 

likewise has pointed to no such evidence of a nationwide scheme by Emanuel and Upton in the 

instant case. 

As an additional point, federal courts have authority to label a litigant “vexatious” and to 

require review of future complaints filed by the vexatious litigant. “The All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1651(a), provides district courts with the inherent power to enter pre-filing orders against 

vexatious litigants.” Molski v. Evergreen Dynasty Corp., 500 F.3d 1047, 1057 (9th Cir. 2007). 

Before entering such an order, district courts must (1) give the litigant notice and an opportunity to 

be heard; (2) compile an adequate record for review; (3) “make substantive findings that the 

 

1 Unlike in the instant case, Plaintiff did not assert a federal cause of action in the McCarthy or 

Upton cases.

Case 5:16-cv-04070-LHK Document 58 Filed 08/26/16 Page 8 of 14
9

Case No. 16-CV-04070-LHK 

ORDER DENYING APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS, DENYING MOTION FOR 

INJUNCTION AND MOTION FOR ORDER OF REMOVAL, AND QUASHING SUBPOENAS

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

Northern District of California

litigant’s filings are frivolous or harassing”; and (4) narrowly tailor the pre-filing order to “fit the 

specific vice encountered.” Hurt v. All Sweepstakes Contests, 2013 WL 144047, *5 (N.D. Cal. 

Jan. 11, 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted). 

In light of the rulings of five other district courts and given the allegations in the instant 

case, the Court finds Plaintiff’s claim that Emanuel and Upton engaged in a nationwide scheme to

prevent Plaintiff from pursuing his girlfriend, super model Samantha Hoopes, to be factually and 

legally frivolous. This finding provides an additional ground for denying Plaintiff’s in forma 

pauperis application. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis is therefore DENIED on 

the basis that the complaint is legally and factually frivolous. 

Moreover, Plaintiff’s allegations have now been before five different federal judges and 

have taken up valuable judicial resources. As the Ninth Circuit has noted, “[f]lagrant abuse of the 

judicial process cannot be tolerated because it enables one person to preempt the use of judicial 

time that properly could be used to consider the meritorious claims of other litigants.” De Long v. 

Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144, 1148 (9th Cir. 1990). Should Plaintiff continue to allege such a 

frivolous nationwide scheme despite the rulings of this Court and other courts, the Court will 

consider whether to declare Plaintiff a vexatious litigant.

2. Plaintiff’s Allegations Against the Other Defendants 

Outside of Plaintiff’s contentions of a nationwide scheme, there is no common allegation 

that links together Plaintiff’s claims against the City of Cedar Falls, the City of San Jose, the City 

of Ventura, the City of Santa Clara, the Los Angeles County Sherriff’s Department, the Santa 

Barbara County Sheriff’s Department, the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department, and Next 

Generation Wireless. 

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a), permissive joinder of defendants is only 

appropriate where (1) “any right to relief [is asserted] jointly, severally, or in the alternative with 

respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or 

occurrences,” and (2), “any question of law or fact common to all plaintiffs will arise in the 

Case 5:16-cv-04070-LHK Document 58 Filed 08/26/16 Page 9 of 14
10

Case No. 16-CV-04070-LHK 

ORDER DENYING APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS, DENYING MOTION FOR 

INJUNCTION AND MOTION FOR ORDER OF REMOVAL, AND QUASHING SUBPOENAS

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

Northern District of California

action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a). “Even once these requirements are met, a district court must 

examine whether permissive joinder would comport with the principles of fundamental fairness or 

would result in prejudice to either side.” Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271, 1296 (9th 

Cir. 2000) (internal quotation marks omitted). “A determination on the question of joinder of 

parties lies within the discretion of the district court.” Wynn v. Nat. Broadcasting Co., 234 F. 

Supp. 2d 1067, 1078 (C.D. Cal. 2002). “If the test for permissive joinder is not satisfied, a court, 

in its discretion, may sever the misjoined parties, so long as no substantial right will be prejudiced 

by the severance.” Coughlin v. Rogers, 130 F.3d 1348, 1350 (9th Cir. 1997). 

In addition, under 28 U.S.C. § 1404, “a district court may transfer any civil action to any 

other district or division where it might have been brought” for “the convenience of parties and 

witnesses” and “in the interest of justice.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404. “A motion to transfer venue lies 

within the broad discretion of the district court.” Roling v. E-Trade Sec., LLC., 756 F. Supp. 2d 

1179, 1183 (N.D. Cal. 2010). 

Consequently, if Plaintiff continues to assert claims against all Defendants, many of whom 

are not located in this District, the Court will examine whether it would be appropriate to sever or 

dismiss these Defendants and/or transfer Plaintiff’s case to another District. 

In light of the Court’s finding that Plaintiff’s complaint is factually and legally frivolous 

and the above concerns regarding misjoinder and venue, the Court advises Plaintiff to contact 

Kevin Knestrick, the staff attorney for the Federal Pro Se Program. Mr. Knestrick is located at the 

U.S. Courthouse, 280 S. 1st Street, 2nd Floor, Room 2070, San Jose, California 95113 and may be 

contacted at 408-297-1480. Additional information regarding the Federal Pro Se Program is 

available at http://cand.uscourts.gov/helpcentersj. 

Plaintiff is to file an amended complaint within 30 days of this Order that cures its factual 

and legal frivolousness and addresses the misjoinder, venue, and other issues raised in this Order. 

Plaintiff must pay the $400.00 filing fee. Failure to address these deficiencies and failure to pay 

the filing fee will result in severance, transfer, or dismissal of this action with prejudice. Failure to 

Case 5:16-cv-04070-LHK Document 58 Filed 08/26/16 Page 10 of 14
11

Case No. 16-CV-04070-LHK 

ORDER DENYING APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS, DENYING MOTION FOR 

INJUNCTION AND MOTION FOR ORDER OF REMOVAL, AND QUASHING SUBPOENAS

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

Northern District of California

address these deficiencies may also result in Plaintiff being declared a vexatious litigant and 

subject to pre-filing review. 

III. ADDITIONAL MATTERS

In addition to filing an application to proceed in forma pauperis, Plaintiff has also filed a 

motion for an injunction against California Governor Jerry Brown, ECF No. 43, and a motion for 

order of removal of a traffic ticket that Plaintiff received in Santa Clara County, ECF No. 56. 

These motions lack merit and are DENIED. Neither the State of California nor Governor 

Brown, in his individual or official capacity, is a party to this case. Moreover, it is unclear how 

Governor Brown’s alleged actions—sending Plaintiff “unwanted and harassing emails”—or 

Plaintiff’s traffic citation is at all relevant to this case. 

Plaintiff has also filed 18 subpoenas, many of which are directed at entities that are not 

parties or relevant to the instant case and are frivolous, such as Instagram HQ, ECF No. 55; Louise 

Ward, a celebrity agent, ECF No. 51; or Piquito Mas Chatsworth, a Mexican restaurant, ECF No. 

23. These subpoenas command the entities to appear at 280 South 1st Street, Courtroom 8 – 4th 

Floor, San Jose, CA 95113—this Court’s courtroom—at a specific time and date. See ECF No. 55 

(commanding Instagram HQ to appear in this Court’s courtroom on October 15, 2016, at 2:00 

p.m.). These subpoenas also generally refer in some way to the nationwide scheme by Emanuel 

and Upton to prevent Plaintiff’s relationship with Hoopes. In the Instagram HQ subpoena, for 

instance, Plaintiff states that “Samantha Hoopes posted photo could be construed as a ‘Hate 

Crime’ under California PC 422.55, although super model Samantha Hoopes was probably just an 

expression of her protected ‘free speech’ [clause] under the 1st Amendment – See Attachment 1.” 

Id. at 1; see also id. at 2 (Attachment 1, which reads that “Plaintiff was dating Samantha Hoopes –

conspirators Mayor Rahm Emanuel and US Rep Fred Upton et al had Plaintiff locked out of 

Plaintiff’s Instagram account and censored.”). 

These subpoenas lack merit, and, like Plaintiff’s complaint, are factually and legally 

frivolous. The Court has never granted Plaintiff access to its courtroom for subpoena-related 

Case 5:16-cv-04070-LHK Document 58 Filed 08/26/16 Page 11 of 14
12

Case No. 16-CV-04070-LHK 

ORDER DENYING APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS, DENYING MOTION FOR 

INJUNCTION AND MOTION FOR ORDER OF REMOVAL, AND QUASHING SUBPOENAS

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

Northern District of California

matters. The subpoenas themselves are often directed at entities that are not parties to this case. 

The subpoenas often refer to the nationwide scheme orchestrated by Emanuel and Upton. These 

subpoenas are QUASHED. ECF Nos. 10, 14, 16, 19, 21, 23, 29, 31, 32, 34, 40, 44, 45, 46, 51, 53, 

54, 55. 

Finally, Plaintiff has repeatedly attempted to set hearing dates on motions and other 

matters without the Court’s permission or approval. See ECF No. 48 (setting an October 6, 2016 

hearing date for injunction motion against Governor Brown). None of these hearing dates are 

valid. Per the Standing Orders of this Court, a party must contact the Courtroom Deputy to 

request a hearing date. Plaintiff has not done so. Moreover, there is no complaint on file, and no 

complaint has been served on any Defendants, so no hearings are appropriate at this time. 

Plaintiff has also sent postcards and multiple emails daily to the Courtroom Deputy and 

Clerk’s Office. After Plaintiff initially sent several emails ex parte, the Court issued an order on 

August 9, 2016 which stated that these emails were “ex parte communications” and were 

prohibited pursuant to Civil Local Rule 11-4(c). ECF No. 25 at 1; see Civil L.R. 11-4(c) (“[A]n 

attorney or party to an action must refrain from making telephone calls or writing letters or 

sending copies of communications between counsel to the assigned Judge or the Judge’s law 

clerks or otherwise communicating with a Judge or the Judge’s staff regarding a pending matter, 

without prior notice to opposing counsel.”). Consistent with the Civil Local Rules, Plaintiff was 

advised that he could only contact the Courtroom Deputy for “non-substantive scheduling 

communications,” and that any such contact “must include opposing counsel.” Id. 

Plaintiff did not comply with the Court’s August 9, 2016 Order, and continued to send ex 

parte communications daily to the Courtroom Deputy. Accordingly, on August 16, 2016, the 

Court issued an order reiterating that Plaintiff could not send ex parte communications to the 

Courtroom Deputy, and that Plaintiff should only communicate with the Courtroom Deputy on 

non-substantive scheduling matters. ECF No. 36 at 1. Plaintiff’s communications to the 

Courtroom Deputy should also include opposing counsel.

Case 5:16-cv-04070-LHK Document 58 Filed 08/26/16 Page 12 of 14
13

Case No. 16-CV-04070-LHK 

ORDER DENYING APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS, DENYING MOTION FOR 

INJUNCTION AND MOTION FOR ORDER OF REMOVAL, AND QUASHING SUBPOENAS

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

Northern District of California

Plaintiff continued, however, to send emails to the Courtroom Deputy. The only apparent 

change that Plaintiff has made has been to include officials from the Santa Clara City government 

on his emails to the Courtroom Deputy. See, e.g., ECF No. 42-1 at 2. The City of Santa Clara, 

although named as a Defendant in Plaintiff’s complaint, has not been served, and no counsel has 

appeared on the City of Santa Clara’s behalf. Moreover, Plaintiff’s emails do not address nonsubstantive scheduling matters, but instead are “substantive correspondences about case 

management.” ECF No. 42 at 1. Accordingly, the Court issued a third order on August 23, 2016 

which emphasized that Plaintiff’s “communications with the Courtroom Deputy should be limited 

in scope to non-substantive scheduling communications that include opposing counsel.” Id. 

In sum, the Court has warned Plaintiff on three occasions over the past month to only 

contact the Courtroom Deputy for non-substantive scheduling matters, and to include opposing 

counsel on all such communications. ECF Nos. 25, 36, 42. Plaintiff has not complied with these 

orders. If Plaintiff continues to violate the Court’s orders, the Court can and will, in its discretion, 

dismiss this action with prejudice. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992) 

(“[T]he district court may dismiss an action for failure to comply with any order of the court.”).

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED. 

Plaintiff must file an amended complaint addressing the deficiencies identified herein and must 

pay the $400.00 filing fee no later than 30 days from the date of this Order. Failure to cure the 

deficiencies identified herein and failure to pay the filing fee within this 30-day period will result 

in dismissal of this action with prejudice. 

Any further failure to comply with the Court’s orders regarding communications with the 

Courtroom Deputy or Clerk’s Office will result in dismissal of this action with prejudice.

Plaintiff’s motion for an injunction and motion for an order of removal, ECF Nos. 43 & 56, 

are DENIED. Plaintiff’s 18 proposed subpoenas are QUASHED. ECF Nos. 10, 14, 16, 19, 21, 

23, 29, 31, 32, 34, 40, 44, 45, 46, 51, 53, 54, 55. 

Case 5:16-cv-04070-LHK Document 58 Filed 08/26/16 Page 13 of 14
14

Case No. 16-CV-04070-LHK 

ORDER DENYING APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS, DENYING MOTION FOR 

INJUNCTION AND MOTION FOR ORDER OF REMOVAL, AND QUASHING SUBPOENAS

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

Northern District of California

Plaintiff has a continuing obligation to keep the Court informed of his or her current 

address. Failure to do so may result in dismissal of this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 26, 2016. 

______________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

Case 5:16-cv-04070-LHK Document 58 Filed 08/26/16 Page 14 of 14