Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01313/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01313-1/pdf.json

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

---

1

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

On October 28, 2024, a complaint was filed naming Collins Charo Capital LLC as the pro se 

Plaintiff, alleging violations of the Lanham Act by government officials, including President Biden. 

(Doc. 1.) The complaint also indicates the “printed name” of the plaintiff is “Collins Charo Capital, 

LLC.” (Id. at 6.) Several “Civil Cover Sheets” attached to the complaint indicate the signatory is 

“UCC 1-308” and a “[p]arty without attorney.” (Doc. 1-1 at 1-3.) The filing fee was paid in full by 

Mei Nagashima. 

The magistrate judge observed that another case was filed on October 25, 2024, by Marvin 

Charo Collins, Case No. 1:24-cv-1309-JLT-EPG, in which Collins asserts claims against (1) President 

Biden; (2) Phillip Talbert, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of California; (3) Brittany 

Gunter, Assistant United States Attorney; and (4) Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe. (Doc. 7 at 2, 

citing Case No. 1:24-cv-1309-JLT-EPG, Doc. 1.) In that action, “Plaintiff Collins lists various federal 

statutes—Lanham Act provisions, criminal statutes, and a civil rights statute—as the basis for federal 

COLLINS CHARO CAPITAL LLC,

 Plaintiff,

v.

JOSEPH ROBINETT BIDEN, JR., et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:24-cv-01313 JLT EPG

ORDER ADOPTING IN PART THE FINDINGS 

AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING THE 

ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE, AND 

DIRECTING THE CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE 

THIS CASE 

(Doc. 7)

Case 1:24-cv-01313-JLT-EPG Document 9 Filed 12/23/24 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

question jurisdiction. He seeks approximately $3 million in damages based on ‘crimes by 

government.’” (Id.) The magistrate judge observed that in the matter now pending, “[w]hile the 

plaintiff is listed as Collins Charo Capital, LLC..., Plaintiff Collins signed the complaint with his 

name.” (Id.) 

Reviewing the complaint, the magistrate judge found the allegations were insufficient to invoke 

this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction. (Doc. 7 at 5.) Further, the magistrate judge found: “Comparing 

the complaint in this case to Plaintiff Collins’s earlier-filed complaint in 1:24-cv-1309-JLT-EPG 

demonstrates that this suit is duplicative.” (Id.) Specifically, the magistrate judge determined “the 

claims, parties, and available relief are materially the same in both actions.” (Id. at 7; see also id. at 6-

7.) Finally, the magistrate judge found the named plaintiff in this action—Collins Charo Capital, 

LLC—could not “proceed in this case without an attorney” because “it is a longstanding rule that 

corporations and other unincorporated associations must appear in court through an attorney.” (Id. at 7, 

quoting D-Beam Ltd. P’ship v. Roller Derby Skates, Inc., 366 F.3d 972, 973-74 (9th Cir. 2004) 

[modifications adopted].) Therefore, the magistrate judge recommended the “action be dismissed, with 

prejudice and without leave to amend, for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, being duplicative of an 

earlier filed lawsuit, and lacking an attorney.” (Id.)

On November 22, 2024, the Court received several documents from Marvin C. Collins1, 

including a “Common Law Copyright Notice for Marvin C. Collins” and a copy of the Findings and 

Recommendations with handwritten notations. (See generally Doc. 8.) To the extent the “Copyright 

Notice” and attached documents are a response to the Findings and Recommendations, the documents 

appear irrelevant. The documents do not mention the named plaintiff, “Collins Charo Capital LLC,”

and do not address either this Court’s jurisdiction or the determination that the case is duplicative of 

Case No. 1:24-cv-1309-JLT-EPG. Further, the documents do not address the requirement that the 

1 The Court takes judicial notice of the records of the California State Bar and Wyoming State Bar—because the mailing 

address of Collins Charo Capital LLC is in Wyoming—as the state bar websites are sources whose accuracy cannot 

reasonably be questioned. See Fed. R. Evid. 201(b); Davis v. Hollins Law, 25 F.Supp.3d 1292, 1298 n. 5 (2014) (indicating 

the court may take judicial notice of the state bar’s website). No individual named “Marvin Collins” is admitted to practice

in the State of California or in this district court. In addition, no individual named “Marvin Collins” is a member of the 

Wyoming State Bar. (Wyoming State Bar Membership Directory, available at https://www.wyomingbar.org/for-thepublic/hire-a-lawyer/membership-directory/ (last visited Dec. 4, 2024).)

Case 1:24-cv-01313-JLT-EPG Document 9 Filed 12/23/24 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

entity must appear in court with licensed counsel. Significantly, the entity remains unrepresented 

because a notice of attorney has not been filed in this action. 

According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. 

Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the record and proper analysis support the 

findings that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the action is duplicative, and the entity cannot 

proceed without counsel. However, based upon these finding, it appears the proper dismissal is without 

prejudice. See, e.g., Kelly v. Fleetwood Enters., Inc., 377 F.3d 1034, 1036 (9th Cir. 2004) (“because 

the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, the claims should have been dismissed without 

prejudice”); Price v. Gell, 2024 WL 54588, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 4, 2024) (dismissing without prejudice 

an action that was “duplicative of a pending action”); Nasser v. Julius Samann Ltd. (S.D. Cal. June 18, 

2019) (dismissing the claims raised by an unrepresented corporation without prejudice because the 

entity “cannot proceed pro se”). Thus, the Court ORDERS:

1. The Findings and Recommendations dated November 12, 2024 (Doc. 7) are ADOPTED in part.

2. The action is DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, as 

duplicative, and for lack of counsel for the unrepresented entity.

3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 22, 2024 

Case 1:24-cv-01313-JLT-EPG Document 9 Filed 12/23/24 Page 3 of 3