Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-02993/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-02993-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 18:1961 Racketeering (RICO) Act

---

Case No. 16-cv-02993 NC 

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 

GUS WHO, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

US GOVERNMENT, 

Defendant. 

Case No. 16-cv-02993 NC 

ORDER REASSIGNING CASE AND 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

TO DISMISS 

Re: Dkt. No. 7 

 In this case alleging that the United States government is responsible for causing 

catastrophic earthquakes and concealing their occurrence from the public, an anonymous 

plaintiff seeks to proceed using the pseudonym Gus Who. Dkt. No. 1. Because Plaintiff 

has not consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), the 

Court ORDERS the matter REASSIGNED to a district court judge. For the reasons 

explained below, the Court RECOMMENDS that the district court DISMISS the action 

under § 1915. 

I. BACKGROUND 

 Plaintiff claims that he has “prophetic dreams” about earthquakes that will happen 

as a result of fracking done in secret by the United States government. Dkt. No. 7 at 2. He 

filed his original complaint on June 3, 2016. Dkt. No. 1. He also requested leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis and for permission for electronic case filing. Dkt. Nos. 2, 3. 

Case 5:16-cv-02993-EJD Document 9 Filed 07/21/16 Page 1 of 4
Case No. 16-cv-02993 NC 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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of California

The Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why he should not be required to disclose his 

name in the lawsuit and denied his request for permission for electronic case filing. Dkt. 

No. 6. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint and a response to the order that does not 

persuade the Court that he should be permitted to proceed anonymously. Dkt. Nos. 7, 8. 

 Plaintiff’s response states that “Plaintiff has clearly sent mail to the FBI and have 

filed this suit claiming that millions of lives and property are at stake, as the ‘numbers’ 

being reported are ‘fishy’ to a point where a atomic size bombs are going off underground 

causing earthquakes that people can feel for hundreds of miles away. In fact other 

countries may file a claim to whatever new form of government comes through this 

foreseeable future.” Dkt. No. 8 at 2. To explain his need for anonymity, Plaintiff states 

that he has “used fictitious names prior to this Class action, and was granted such status . . . 

such as John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt and Robin Hood in USDC For Southern District 

of Florida in Case No. 09-MD-02036-JLK and then even sued the USDC Judge (King) in 

that case in San Francisco, Case # C-12-01542 SI as it was ‘fixed.’” Id. 

 The Court also ordered Plaintiff to file a consent or declination to magistrate judge 

jurisdiction by July 14, 2016. Dkt. No. 6. The Court has sent Plaintiff forms to either 

consent or decline magistrate judge jurisdiction twice. Plaintiff has not filed a consent or 

declination. 

II. LEGAL STANDARD 

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), “any court of the United States may authorize the 

commencement . . . of any suit . . . without prepayment of fees or security therefor, by a 

person who submits an affidavit that includes a statement . . . that the person is unable to 

pay such fees or give security therefor.” A district court must dismiss the complaint of an 

in forma pauperis (IFP) applicant if it determines that the complaint is frivolous or fails to 

state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Lopez v. Smith, 

203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000). A complaint is frivolous for purposes of 28 

U.S.C. § 1915 if it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 

U.S. 319, 325 (1989). “Dismissals on these grounds are often made sua sponte prior to the 

Case 5:16-cv-02993-EJD Document 9 Filed 07/21/16 Page 2 of 4
Case No. 16-cv-02993 NC 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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of California

issuance of process, so as to spare prospective defendants the inconvenience and expense 

of answering such complaints.” Id. at 324. 

Further, district courts have the authority to dismiss complaints founded on “wholly 

fanciful” factual allegations for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Franklin v. Murphy, 

745 F.2d 1221, 1228 (9th Cir. 1984). 

Where a litigant is acting pro se and the court finds the litigant’s complaint 

frivolous within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the pro se litigant “must be 

given leave to amend his or her complaint, and some notice of its deficiencies, unless it is 

absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by amendment.” 

Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995) (citation omitted). 

III. ANALYSIS 

 Plaintiff has shown in his IFP application that he is unable to pay the filing fee 

required to file a complaint in federal district court. Dkt. No. 2. However, his amended 

complaint does not pass § 1915 review and should be dismissed. Plaintiff fails to identify 

any legal basis for his claims and alleges facts that are wholly incredible and his complaint 

therefore lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 325. His 

assertion that he is a prophetic dreamer who is able to see the future and discern an 

apocalyptic destruction of the United States due to fracking and underground bombing 

tests being secretly run by the government and resulting in seismic earthquakes is “wholly 

fanciful.” Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1228; Dkt. No. 7 at 2. Further, his response to the Court’s 

order to show cause why he must proceed anonymously does not satisfy the requirements 

for proceeding under a pseudonym as set out by the Ninth Circuit in United States v. 

Stoterau, 524 F.3d 988, 1012 (9th Cir. 2008) and United States v. Doe, 488 F.3d 1154, 

1156 n. 1 (9th Cir. 2007). See Dkt. No. 6 at 2. Because Plaintiff has failed to state the 

legal or factual elements of a claim and has failed to show why he should be permitted to 

bring his case anonymously, the Court recommends that his case be dismissed. Neitzke, 

490 U.S. at 325; Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1228.

Case 5:16-cv-02993-EJD Document 9 Filed 07/21/16 Page 3 of 4
Case No. 16-cv-02993 NC 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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of California

IV. CONCLUSION 

 This Court RECOMMENDS that the newly assigned district court judge dismiss the 

complaint pursuant to Section 1915(e) with leave to amend to clarify what law Plaintiff 

alleges the government has broken. He may file objections to this report and 

recommendation with the district court judge within fourteen days after being served with 

a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Civil L.R. 72-3. Failure to 

file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the district court’s 

ultimate order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: July 21, 2016 _____________________________________ 

NATHANAEL M. COUSINS 

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 5:16-cv-02993-EJD Document 9 Filed 07/21/16 Page 4 of 4