Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-02993/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-02993-1/pdf.json

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

---

1

Case No.: 5:16-cv-02993-EJD

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS; DISMISSING COMPLAINT

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

GUS WHO, on behalf of all victims and 

Individuals whom have a stake in this action, 

et al.,

Plaintiff,

v.

U.S. GOVERNMENT,

Defendant.

Case No. 5:16-cv-02993-EJD 

ORDER:

ADOPTING REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION; 

GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN 

FORMA PAUPERIS; 

DISMISSING COMPLAINT

Re: Dkt. Nos. 2, 9

I. INTRODUCTION

Anonymous Plaintiff Gus Who (“Plaintiff”), a “Prophetic Dreamer” who alleges to have 

predicted that a “Mega Fracking Earthquake” will occur in Oklahoma at some future time, filed 

this case against the “U.S. Government” on behalf of himself and “all victims and Individuals 

whom have a stake in this action” based on “fishy numbers” issued by the United States 

Geological Survey. In addition to the Complaint that commenced this action, Plaintiff filed an 

application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) as well as a motion for permission to file 

documents electronically. Dkt. Nos. 2, 3. 

Magistrate Judge Nathanael Cousins, to whom the case was previously assigned, issued 

two orders in response to Plaintiff’s additional documents. In the first, Judge Cousins denied 

Case 5:16-cv-02993-EJD Document 14 Filed 08/16/16 Page 1 of 5
2

Case No.: 5:16-cv-02993-EJD

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS; DISMISSING COMPLAINT

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 leave to file documents electronically and ordered Plaintiff, by July 15, 2016, to either 

refile the complaint using his real name or to file a motion demonstrating why Plaintiff is entitled 

to remain anonymous under the applicable legal standard. Dkt. No. 6. Plaintiff thereafter filed an 

“amendment to complaint” and a response, neither of which complied with Judge Cousins’ 

instructions. Dkt. Nos. 7, 8. 

In his second order, Judge Cousins undertook review of Plaintiff’s Complaint pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), concluded the allegations failed to state a claim and were “wholly 

incredible,” and recommended the court dismiss the Complaint with leave to amend so that 

Plaintiff may clarify the law upon which any claim is based. Dkt. No. 9. 

This case was reassigned to the undersigned on July 21, 2016. Dkt. No. 10. Having 

reviewed Judge Cousins’ recommendation in conjunction with Plaintiff’s filings, the court concurs 

that the Complaint is inadequate under the § 1915(e) standard. Accordingly, Judge Cousins’ 

recommendation will be adopted and the Complaint dismissed with leave to amend pursuant to the 

following discussion. 

II. DISCUSSION

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), federal courts are authorized to pre-screen claims filed

by IFP plaintiffs prior to service and may dismiss a case at any time the court determines that: (1)

the allegation of poverty is untrue; (2) the action is frivolous or malicious; (3) the action fails to 

state a claim; or (4) the action seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 

relief. Dismissals under this section are not dismissals on the merits. See Denton v. Hernandez, 

504 U.S. 25, 34 (1992).

“[W]hen determining whether a complaint states a claim, a court must accept as true all 

allegations of material fact and must construe those facts in the light most favorable to the 

plaintiff.” Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000); see Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 

1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2005); see also Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) 

(noting that § 1915(e)(2) “parallels the language of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)”). At 

Case 5:16-cv-02993-EJD Document 14 Filed 08/16/16 Page 2 of 5
3

Case No.: 5:16-cv-02993-EJD

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS; DISMISSING COMPLAINT

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 same time, however, dismissal is proper where there is either a “lack of a cognizable legal 

theory” or “the absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory.” Balistreri v. 

Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). Indeed, “for a complaint to survive a 

motion to dismiss, the non-conclusory ‘factual content,’ and reasonable inferences from that 

content, must be plausibly suggestive of a claim entitling the plaintiff to relief.” Moss v. U.S. 

Secret Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). Legal conclusions without facts to support them 

will not do; the allegations in the complaint “must be enough to raise a right to relief above the 

speculative level.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007).

In addition, “a court may dismiss a claim as factually frivolous only if the facts alleged are 

‘clearly baseless,’ a category encompassing allegations that are ‘fanciful,’ ‘fantastic,’ and 

‘delusional.’” Denton, 504 U.S. at 32-33 (internal citations omitted). “As those words suggest, a 

finding of factual frivolousness is appropriate when the facts alleged rise to the level of the

irrational or the wholly incredible, whether or not there are judicially noticeable facts available to 

contradict them.” Id. at 33. “[F]rivolousness is a decision entrusted to the discretion of the court 

entertaining the in forma pauperis petition.” Id.

Furthermore, where, as here, the pleading at issue is filed by a plaintiff proceeding pro se, 

it must be construed liberally. Resnick, 213 F.3d at 447. But while the standard for review is 

liberal, the court may not “supply essential elements of claims that were not initially pled.” Ivey 

v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982).

Here, neither the Complaint nor any of the subsequent amendments filed by Plaintiff 

identify exactly what legal claim he has attempted to assert against the “U.S. Government.” 

Though the Complaint makes reference in the caption to “racketeer influenced and corrupt 

organizations,” Plaintiff has not alleged sufficient factual allegations to make out a claim for civil 

liability under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) to the extent that statute is invoked. See Grimmett v. Brown, 

75 F.3d 506, 510 (9th Cir. 1996) (“The elements of a civil RICO claim are simple enough: (1) 

conduct (2) of an enterprise (3) through a pattern (4) of racketeering activity (known as ‘predicate 

Case 5:16-cv-02993-EJD Document 14 Filed 08/16/16 Page 3 of 5
4

Case No.: 5:16-cv-02993-EJD

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS; DISMISSING COMPLAINT

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

acts’) (5) causing injury to the plaintiff’s ‘business or property.’”). In any event, sovereign 

immunity would bar a RICO claim against the “U.S. Government” even if Plaintiff had alleged 

potentially relevant facts. See Gilbert v. DaGrossa, 756 F.2d 1455, 1458 (9th Cir. 1985) (“It is 

well settled that the United States is a sovereign, and, as such, is immune from suit unless it has 

expressly waived such immunity and consented to be sued.”); see also Berger v. Pierce, 933 F.2d 

393, 397 (6th Cir. 1991) (“It is clear that there can be no RICO claim against the federal 

government . . . since it is self-evident that a federal agency is not subject to state or federal 

criminal prosecution.” (citations omitted)). 

Furthermore, the Complaint in its current form falls squarely within the standard for 

frivolousness outlined in Denton. The allegations stating that Plaintiff is a “Prophetic Dreamer” 

who can predict fracking-related earthquakes in Oklahoma as well as, most recently, a plane 

“carrying American lives going down in the ocean between Rio (the Olympic Games) and the US 

in about a week (right after the games end)” are certainly fanciful and fantastic, if not also 

delusional. And the fact that Plaintiff has failed to identify himself in his pleadings, even after 

being advised to do so by Judge Cousins, only magnifies the conclusion that this case rises to the 

level of irrational and wholly incredible. 

Because the Complaint both lacks a cognizable legal theory, potentially seeks relief from 

an immune party, and is frivolous, this action is subject to dismissal under § 1915(e)(2) in 

accordance with the order below. 

III. ORDER

Based on the foregoing, the court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation issued by Judge 

Cousins on July 21, 2016 (Dkt. No. 9), such that Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma 

pauperis (Dkt. No. 2) is GRANTED, but the Complaint is DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO 

AMEND pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 

Any amended complaint must be filed on or before August 31, 2016, and must:

(1) either be pled in Plaintiff’s actual name or be accompanied by a motion that, consistent 

Case 5:16-cv-02993-EJD Document 14 Filed 08/16/16 Page 4 of 5
5

Case No.: 5:16-cv-02993-EJD

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS; DISMISSING COMPLAINT

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

with Judge Cousins’ prior order on this topic, demonstrates why Plaintiff is entitled to remain 

anonymous under applicable Ninth Circuit authority (United States v. Stoterau, 524 F.3d 988, 

1012 (9th Cir. 2008));

(2) identifies the legal authority upon which Plaintiff brings any claim; and 

(3) contains sufficient factual content to state a non-frivolous claim against any defendant. 

Plaintiff is advised that the court may dismiss this action without further notice if an 

amended complaint is not filed by the designated deadline. Plaintiff is further notified the court 

will review any amended complaint pursuant to § 1915(e)(2).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 16, 2016

______________________________________

EDWARD J. DAVILA

United States District Judge

Case 5:16-cv-02993-EJD Document 14 Filed 08/16/16 Page 5 of 5