Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-02624/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-02624-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JUNHO HYON, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

GOVERNOR JERRY BROWN; STATE 

OF CALIFORNIA, 

Defendants. 

No. 2:16-cv-2624 TLN AC (PS) 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was accordingly referred to the 

undersigned by E.D. Cal. 302(c)(21). Plaintiff has filed a request for leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, and has submitted the affidavit required by that 

statute. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). The motion to proceed IFP will therefore be granted. 

I. SCREENING 

 Granting IFP status does not end the court’s inquiry. The federal IFP statute requires 

federal courts to dismiss a case if the action is legally “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a 

claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is 

immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 

 Plaintiff must assist the court in determining whether the complaint is frivolous or not, by 

drafting the complaint so that it complies with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 

Case 2:16-cv-02624-TLN-AC Document 3 Filed 11/22/16 Page 1 of 6
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

(“Fed. R. Civ. P.”). The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are available online at 

www.uscourts.gov/rules-policies/current-rules-practice-procedure/federal-rules-civil-procedure. 

Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the complaint must contain (1) a “short and plain 

statement” of the basis for federal jurisdiction (that is, the reason the case is filed in this court, 

rather than in a state court), (2) a short and plain statement showing that plaintiff is entitled to 

relief (that is, who harmed the plaintiff, and in what way), and (3) a demand for the relief sought. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. (“Rule”) 8(a). Plaintiff’s claims must be set forth simply, concisely and directly. 

Rule 8(d)(1). Forms are available to help pro se plaintiffs organize their complaint in the proper 

way. They are available at the Clerk’s Office, 501 I Street, 4th Floor (Rm. 4-200), Sacramento, 

CA 95814, or online at www.uscourts.gov/forms/pro-se-forms. 

 A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the 

court will (1) accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in the complaint, unless they 

are clearly baseless or fanciful, (2) construe those allegations in the light most favorable to the 

plaintiff, and (3) resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor. See Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327; 

Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007); Von Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art at 

Pasadena, 592 F.3d 954, 960 (9th Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 564 U.S. 1037 (2011); Hebbe v. Pliler, 

627 F.3d 338, 340 (9th Cir. 2010). However, the court need not accept as true, legal conclusions 

cast in the form of factual allegations, or allegations that contradict matters properly subject to 

judicial notice. See Western Mining Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d 618, 624 (9th Cir. 1981); 

Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir.), as amended, 275 F.3d 1187 

(2001). 

 Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by lawyers. 

Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Pro se complaints are construed liberally and may 

only be dismissed if it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support 

of his claim which would entitle him to relief. Nordstrom v. Ryan, 762 F.3d 903, 908 (9th 

Cir. 2014). A pro se litigant is entitled to notice of the deficiencies in the complaint and an 

/// 

Case 2:16-cv-02624-TLN-AC Document 3 Filed 11/22/16 Page 2 of 6
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

opportunity to amend, unless the complaint’s deficiencies could not be cured by amendment. See 

Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987). 

 A. The Complaint 

 Plaintiff has named “Governor Jerry Brown” and “State of California” as the sole 

defendants in this lawsuit. Complaint (ECF No. 1) at 2 ¶ I. The complaint alleges two state 

claims, namely, negligence and constructive fraud. Complaint at 13-14. 

 The allegations of the complaint are taken as true only for purposes of this screening. It 

appears that plaintiff’s troubles began with a state court lawsuit involving a “Short Form Deed of 

Trust and Assignment of Rent” in July 2013. Complaint at 2 ¶ 6. At a hearing on the matter 

before “Judge Scott Kays (‘Kays’) of Superior Court of Solano County,” plaintiff argued that the 

deed was “bogus.” Id. However, Judge Kays ruled against plaintiff, and in doing so, ignored the 

crimes of his lawyers in filing the bogus deed, issued “fabricated” statements and “fabricated 

false evidence.” Id. 

 Plaintiff notified Governor Brown of Judge Kays’s actions, but the Governor “has 

neglected to amend wrongful conduct of Judge Scott Kays ....” Id. at 2 ¶ 4. Plaintiff “filed a 

complaint against Judge Kays for his ruling on the deed with Commission on Judicial 

Performance,” but the Commission rejected his complaint. Id. at 4 ¶ 10. Governor Brown, 

although aware of these facts, “neglected to amend the commission’s wrongful conduct.” Id. 

Plaintiff alleges that Governor Brown also failed to amend various other wrongful acts (or 

wrongful failures to act) by his lawyers Jeffrey W. Shopoff, Philip C. Putnam, Robert Stumpf and 

Harold Light, Shopoff’s lawyer Ronald Mallen, court-appointed receiver Donald Savage and his 

lawyer Michael Donner, Judge Curtis Karnow of San Francisco Superior Court, the U.S. Internal 

Revenue Service, the San Francisco Police Department, the State Bar, the “Attorney General” and 

the District Attorney of Solano County. Complaint at 4-12. 

 B. Analysis 

 This court lacks jurisdiction over this lawsuit, and accordingly it must be dismissed. First, 

the complaint does not allege the basis for federal jurisdiction (that is, why the lawsuit is brought 

in this court rather than in a state court), and no facts appear in the complaint from which federal 

Case 2:16-cv-02624-TLN-AC Document 3 Filed 11/22/16 Page 3 of 6
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 

4

jurisdiction may be inferred. Specifically, the only claims alleged in the complaint are state law 

claims, as no federal law claims are alleged or otherwise appear from the facts alleged. 

Moreover, there are no facts alleged that would support a finding of “diversity” jurisdiction, the 

basis of federal jurisdiction for purely state claims filed in federal court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332. 

 Second, the only two defendants in this action are both immune from this suit, which 

seeks $30 million in damages. Because the Governor’s liability is predicated solely upon his 

failure to carry out what plaintiff perceives to be his duties as governor, he is immune from a 

damages lawsuit in this court. See Ass’n des Eleveurs de Canards et d’Oies du Quebec v. Harris, 

729 F.3d 937, 943 (9th Cir. 2013) (“Governor Brown is entitled to Eleventh Amendment 

immunity” where the lawsuit is based on “his general duty to enforce California law”), cert. 

denied, 135 S. Ct. 398 (2014). The State of California is also immune from a damages lawsuit in 

this court. Id. (“States are protected by the Eleventh Amendment from suits brought by citizens 

in federal court”) (internal quotation marks omitted). There are no facts alleged in the complaint 

that would provide a basis for an exception to either defendants’ immunity. 

II. AMENDING THE COMPLAINT 

 If plaintiff chooses to amend his complaint, the amended complaint must allege facts 

establishing the existence of federal jurisdiction. In addition, it must contain a short and plain 

statement of plaintiff’s claims. The allegations of the complaint must be set forth in sequentially 

numbered paragraphs, with each paragraph number being one greater than the one before, each 

paragraph having its own number, and no paragraph number being repeated anywhere in the 

complaint. Each paragraph should be limited “to a single set of circumstances” where possible. 

Rule 10(b). As noted above, forms are available to help plaintiffs organize their complaint in the 

proper way. They are available at the Clerk’s Office, 501 I Street, 4th Floor (Rm. 4-200), 

Sacramento, CA 95814, or online at www.uscourts.gov/forms/pro-se-forms. 

 Plaintiff must avoid excessive repetition of the same allegations. Plaintiff must avoid 

narrative and storytelling. That is, the complaint should not include every detail of what 

happened, nor recount the details of conversations (unless necessary to establish the claim), nor 

/// 

Case 2:16-cv-02624-TLN-AC Document 3 Filed 11/22/16 Page 4 of 6
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 

5

give a running account of plaintiff’s hopes and thoughts. Rather, the amended complaint should 

contain only those facts needed to show how the defendant legally wronged the plaintiff. 

 The amended complaint must not force the court and the defendants to guess at what is 

being alleged against whom. See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996) 

(affirming dismissal of a complaint where the district court was “literally guessing as to what 

facts support the legal claims being asserted against certain defendants”). The amended 

complaint must not require the court to spend its time “preparing the ‘short and plain statement’ 

which Rule 8 obligated plaintiffs to submit.” Id. at 1180 The amended complaint must not 

require the court and defendants to prepare lengthy outlines “to determine who is being sued for 

what.” Id. at 1179. 

 Also, the amended complaint must not refer to a prior pleading in order to make plaintiff’s 

amended complaint complete. An amended complaint must be complete in itself without 

reference to any prior pleading. Local Rule 220. This is because, as a general rule, an amended 

complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Pacific Bell Tel. Co. v. Linkline 

Communications, Inc., 555 U.S. 438, 456 n.4 (2009) (“[n]ormally, an amended complaint 

supersedes the original complaint”) (citing 6 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice & 

Procedure § 1476, pp. 556-57 (2d ed. 1990)). Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an 

original complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently 

alleged. 

III. CONCLUSION 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is GRANTED. 

2. The complaint (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED because it fails to allege federal jurisdiction, 

and names only defendants who are immune from suit. 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

Case 2:16-cv-02624-TLN-AC Document 3 Filed 11/22/16 Page 5 of 6
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 

6

3. Plaintiff shall have 30 days from the date of this order to file an amended complaint that 

names defendants who are amenable to suit, and which complies with the instructions 

given above. If plaintiff fails to timely comply with this order, the undersigned may 

recommend that this action be dismissed. 

DATED: November 21, 2016. 

Case 2:16-cv-02624-TLN-AC Document 3 Filed 11/22/16 Page 6 of 6