Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-04910/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-04910-0/pdf.json

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

---

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

FRANK BRETT,

Plaintiff,

v.

RICHARD PAN, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.16-cv-04910-JSC 

ORDER REASSIGNING AND REPORT 

AND RECOMMENDATION TO 

DISMISS COMPLAINT UNDER 

SECTION 1915

Plaintiff Frank Brett (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, brings this action against Richard 

Pan1, Vincent Fumo, Jenny Fumo, Robert Rockwell, and Hughes Murphy (collectively 

“Defendants”). The Court previously granted Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis 

and reviewed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (Dkt. No. 4.) Having previously granted 

Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court now reviews the sufficiency of the 

Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Because Plaintiff has neither consented nor declined the 

jurisdiction of the undersigned magistrate judge despite be granted multiple opportunities to do 

so (Dtk. Nos. 4 & 6), 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. 

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff submitted a handwritten form Complaint which is nearly illegible making his 

claims very difficult to discern. (Dkt. No. 1.) He indicates that his case raises federal question 

jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 and the 1996 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act 

 

1

The Clerk shall amend the docket to reflect that the Defendant’s name is Richard Pan, not Par.

Case 3:16-cv-04910-CRB Document 7 Filed 10/27/16 Page 1 of 5
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

because “they tried to listen in on secrets of state and stole my briefcase which held over 2000 

[illegible] sealed documents.” (Dkt. No. 1 at 2.) Under the Statement of Facts section he 

indicates that “they tried to listen in on secrets of state. I was followed into FBI Federal 

Courthouse by Democrat Jerry Brown to Dr. Richard Pan, Vincent Fumo Democrat Pa. Robert 

Brady Congressman [illegible] Mr. + Mrs. Auerbach. The Auerbach used their cell phone inside 

US Federal Courthouse. They took pictures to spy on me and so did a Black woman on 

Thursday 8/25/16.” (Id. at 4.) The remainder is illegible. In his demand for relief, Plaintiff 

states that that he needs an injunction and prays for $3 million in damages. (Id. at p. 6.) There 

are 44 pages of attachments to his complaint most of which are handwritten and a few of which 

contain photos of naked women. (Id. at pp. 7-51.)

DISCUSSION

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the Court has a continuing duty to dismiss any case in which a 

party is proceeding in forma pauperis if the Court determines that the action is (1) frivolous or 

malicious; (2) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief 

against a defendant who is immune from such relief. § 1915(e)(2); see also Neitzke v. Williams, 

490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989) (“[A] complaint, containing as it does both factual allegations and legal 

conclusions, is frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.”). Upon 

dismissal, pro se plaintiffs proceeding in forma pauperis must be given leave to “amend their 

complaint unless it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by 

amendment.” Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1235 n.9 (9th Cir. 1984) (internal citations and 

quotation marks omitted); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 2000); Balistreri v. 

Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 701 (9th Cir. 1988); Breier v. N. Cal. Bowling Proprietors’ 

Ass’n, 316 F.2d 787, 790 (9th Cir. 1963).

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), “[a] pleading that states a claim for relief 

must contain . . . a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to 

relief.” This rule “require[s] that the pleading ... give[ ] the opposing party fair notice of the nature 

and basis or grounds of the claim and a general indication of the type of litigation involved.” 

Immigrant Assistance Project of Los Angeles Cnty. Fed’n of Labor (AFL-CIO) v. I.N.S., 306 F.3d 

Case 3:16-cv-04910-CRB Document 7 Filed 10/27/16 Page 2 of 5
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

842, 865 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting 5 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice 

and Procedure § 1215 (2d ed. 1990)). “[A]lthough pro se pleadings are construed liberally, even 

pro se pleadings must meet some minimum threshold in providing a defendant with notice of what 

it is that it allegedly did wrong.” Doe v. Fed. Dist. Court, 467 F. App’x 725, 727 (9th Cir. 2012)

(internal quotation marks omitted). 

The Court cannot discern any cognizable claim from Plaintiff’s complaint. To the extent 

that he seeks to state a claim under Section 1983 he must allege two elements: (1) violation of a 

right secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States, and (2) that the violation was 

committed by a person acting under color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988) 

(internal citations omitted). Although Plaintiff identifies two of the Defendants: Richard Pan and 

Vincent Fumo as senators, only Dr. Pan appears to be currently serving as a state senator.2 There 

is no suggestion that the other named Defendants, Jenny Fumo, Robert Rockwell, or Hughes 

Murphy, are state actors.3 See Price v. Hawaii, 939 F.2d 702, 707-08 (9th Cir. 1991) (“private 

parties are not generally acting under color of state law” and “conclusionary allegations, 

unsupported by facts” are insufficient to consider a private party a state actor for the purposes of § 

1983) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). 

Nor has Plaintiff adequately alleged violation of a federally protected right. To state a 

claim under Section 1983, plaintiff must show a specific constitutional or federal guarantee 

safeguarding the interests that have been invaded. See Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693, 697 (1976); 

Kennedy v. H & M Landing, Inc., 529 F.2d 987, 989 (9th Cir. 1976) (“plaintiff [must] identify the 

civil right allegedly invaded”). The attachments to Plaintiff’s Complaint reference his First 

Amendment rights, but Plaintiff has failed to satisfy the pleading standards for a Section 1983 

First Amendment claim which generally requires a plaintiff to “establish first, that his speech or 

act was constitutionally protected; second, that the defendant's retaliatory conduct adversely 

affected the protected speech; and third, that there is a causal connection between the retaliatory 

 

2 Vincent Fumo was a Pennsylvania state senator from 1978 to 2008.

3

It is also unclear why venue in this district is proper as Senator Pan is a state senator representing 

Sacramento which is in the Eastern District of California, and the addresses for the remaining 

Defendants are outside California.

Case 3:16-cv-04910-CRB Document 7 Filed 10/27/16 Page 3 of 5
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

actions and the adverse effect on speech.” Doe v. Cty. of San Mateo, No. C 07-05596 SI, 2009 

WL 735149, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 2009). To the extent that Plaintiff vaguely references a 

violation of his “right to privacy” this claim is likewise inadequately pled as Plaintiff has failed to 

specify his privacy interest. See Thorne v. City of El Segundo, 726 F.2d 459, 468 (9th Cir. 1983).

Nor has Plaintiff adequately pled a claim under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act 

(“FISA”).

4

 Under FISA, “[a]n aggrieved person ... who has been subjected to an electronic 

surveillance or about whom information obtained by electronic surveillance of such person has 

been disclosed or used in violation of section 1809 of this title shall have a cause of action against 

any person who committed such violation.” 50 U.S.C. § 1801(k). Here, Plaintiff alleges that 

individuals “took pictures to spy on me” (see Dkt. No. 1 at 4) and his handwritten attachments to 

the complaint, although largely illegible, likewise appear to allege that various individuals took 

photos of him and used hidden cell phones. Because the nature of Plaintiff’s allegations regarding 

surveillance cannot be discerned, he has not sufficiently alleged a FISA claim.

In sum, because the filing presents “no cognizable legal theory [and] an absence of 

sufficient facts alleged to support a cognizable legal theory,” the Complaint is subject to dismissal 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). Shroyer v. New Cingular Wireless Servs., Inc., 622 F.3d 1035, 1041 

(9th Cir. 2010). 

The Court also notes that this appears to be one of many lawsuits Plaintiff has filed across 

the country including a lawsuit filed on September 20, 2016 in the Eastern District of California 

containing similar allegations against many of the same defendants here as well as Governor Jerry 

Brown. See Frank Brett v. Jerry Brown et al, No.16-cv-06916-SVW-KES, (E.D. Cal.). The court 

dismissed that action without leave to amend and in doing so noted that “[s]ince 2006, Plaintiff 

has filed 148 lawsuits in federal courts across the United States, including DC, Delaware, Florida, 

Maryland, North Carolina New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, South Carolina and Virginia” 

and “[n]early all of Plaintiff’s suits have been dismissed, usually after having been deemed 

 

4

The Complaint indicates that Plaintiff is suing under the “1996 [illegible] Foreign Intelligence 

Surveillance Act”, but the Court assumes Plaintiff is referring to the Foreign Intelligence 

Surveillance Act of 1978, 50 U.S.C. § 1801 et seq.

Case 3:16-cv-04910-CRB Document 7 Filed 10/27/16 Page 4 of 5
5

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

incomprehensible and/or patently frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915(e)(2)(B).” Id. at Dkt. 

No. 6 (citing examples). Indeed, since this action was filed Plaintiff has filed three additional 

actions, including the one in the Eastern District of California, alleging claims against some of the 

same defendants here. See Brett v. Laton et al., No. 2:16-cv-03546-DMF (D. Ariz.) (filed Oct. 14, 

2016); Brett v. Unknown Party, et al., No. 16-cv-03424-SPL (D. Ariz.) (filed Oct. 7, 2016); Frank 

Brett v. Jerry Brown et al, No.16-cv-06916-SVW-KES, (E.D. Cal.) (filed Sept. 20, 2016).

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the Court RECOMMENDS that the newly-assigned district 

court judge DISMISS the complaint with prejudice pursuant to Section 1915(e).

Any party may file objections to this report and recommendation with the district court 

judge within 14 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: October 27, 2016

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:16-cv-04910-CRB Document 7 Filed 10/27/16 Page 5 of 5