Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-01989/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-01989-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ALLEN STOWERS, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

RAMA AMBATI, et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 15-cv-01989-EDL 

ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE 

Plaintiff Allen Stowers filed his complaint and Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 

(“IFP Application”) on May 1, 2015. On May 5, this Court GRANTED Plaintiff’s IFP 

Application but reserved its determination of compliance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). On 

May 20, 2015, Plaintiff consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). 

For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed with leave to amend. 

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

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

person who makes affidavit that he is unable to pay such costs or give security therefor.” The 

court may dismiss a case sua sponte if the court determines that the party applying for in forma 

pauperis status has filed a frivolous action or that the action fails to state a claim on which relief 

may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1989); 

see also Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227 (9th Cir. 1984) (“courts may dismiss frivolous 

actions filed in forma pauperis”). Dismissal on these grounds is often made sua sponte prior to 

Case 3:15-cv-01989-EDL Document 8 Filed 05/26/15 Page 1 of 3
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 Californi

a

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

answering such complaints. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324 (1989). Moreover, a Court is 

obligated “to consider issues related to federal subject matter jurisdiction and may do so sua 

sponte.” OWB, REO, LLC v. Negrete, 2011 WL 1667916, at *1 (N.D. Cal. May 3, 2011) 

(Armstrong, J.) (citing Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83, 93-94 (1998)). 

Plaintiff’s complaint is largely unintelligible, though it appears to be directed to individuals who 

purchased his home after its foreclosure by Wells Fargo at some unknown time in the past. While 

Plaintiff’s complaint lists number of claims including collusion, fraud, possession of stolen 

property, unfair business practices, racketeering, racism, reverse discrimination, breach of duty 

and reverse redlining, the legal and factual bases for the claims and the defendant(s) against which 

each claim is asserted are unclear. In sum, Plaintiff's complaint fails to include a “short and plain 

statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief” as required by Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 8(a)(2). Therefore, Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed. 

Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint. Any amended complaint must be 

filed within 30 days of the date of this Order, and should clearly state Plaintiff’s factual allegations 

and make it plain which allegations and claims relate to which defendants. 

The Court notes that Plaintiff has filed several other complaints in this district that appear 

to relate to the same or similar subject matter, all of which have been dismissed at the pleading 

stage. See Stowers v. Wells Fargo Bank, et al., 10-1119-SI; Stowers v. Wells Fargo Bank, et al., 

12-3871-CRB; Stowers v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., et al., 13-5426-RS. Plaintiff is cautioned that 

continuing to file meritless lawsuits could have negative consequences, including but not limited 

to being deemed a vexatious litigant by the Court. 

Plaintiff may wish to seek assistance from the Legal Help Center, a free service of the 

Volunteer Legal Services Program, by calling (415) 782-8982 or signing up for an appointment on 

the 15th Floor of the Courthouse, Room 2796. At the Legal Help Center, Plaintiffs may speak with 

an attorney who may be able to provide basic legal help, but not legal representation. The Court 

also urges Plaintiffs to obtain a copy of the Pro Se Handbook, available free of charge from the 

Court's website (www.cand.uscourts.gov) or in the Clerk's Office on the 16th Floor, 450 Golden 

Case 3:15-cv-01989-EDL Document 8 Filed 05/26/15 Page 2 of 3
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 Californi

a

Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: May 26, 2015 

________________________ 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE 

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 3:15-cv-01989-EDL Document 8 Filed 05/26/15 Page 3 of 3