Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-06189/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-06189-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1345 Foreclosure

---

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

TIMOTHY WILLIAM BROWN,

Plaintiff,

v.

WELLS FARGO & COMPANY, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 4:18-cv-06189-KAW 

SCREENING ORDER REVIEWING 

PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED 

COMPLAINT; ORDER CONTINUING 

CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

Re: Dkt. No. 12

On October 9, 2018, Plaintiff Timothy William Brown filed this civil action and 

application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP Application.”) (Dkt. Nos. 1 and 4.) On October 26, 

2018, the Court granted Plaintiff’s IFP Application. (Dkt. No. 10.) On November 19, 2018, 

Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint. (First Am. Compl, “FAC,” Dkt. No. 12.) The Court now 

screens Plaintiff’s Frist Amended Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, and, for the reasons set 

forth below, concludes that the operative complaint is deficient.

I. LEGAL STANDARD

The in forma pauperis statute provides that the Court shall dismiss the case if at any time 

the Court determines that the allegation of poverty is untrue, or that the action (1) is 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. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 

A complaint is frivolous under Section 1915 where there is no subject matter jurisdiction. 

See Castillo v. Marshall, 207 F.3d 15, 15 (9th Cir. 1997) (citation omitted); see also Pratt v. Sumner, 

807 F.2d 817, 819 (9th Cir. 19987) (recognizing the general proposition that a complaint should be 

dismissed as frivolous on Section 1915 review where subject matter jurisdiction is lacking).

A complaint may also be dismissed for failure to state a claim, because Section 1915(e)(2) 

parallels the language of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 

Case 4:18-cv-06189-KAW Document 15 Filed 01/30/19 Page 1 of 4
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

1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000). The complaint, therefore, must allege facts that plausibly establish the 

defendant’s liability. See Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-57 (2007). When the 

complaint has been filed by a pro se plaintiff, courts must “construe the pleadings liberally . . . to 

afford the petitioner the benefit of any doubt.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 

2010)(citations omitted). 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).

II. DISCUSSION

As courts of limited jurisdiction, “federal courts have an independent obligation to ensure 

that they do not exceed the scope of their jurisdiction.” Henderson ex rel. Henderson v. Shinseki, 

562 U.S. 428, 434 (2011); Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1116 (9th Cir. 2004) (noting 

that district courts are “obligated to consider sua sponte whether [they] have subject matter 

jurisdiction”). There are two bases for federal subject matter jurisdiction: (1) federal question 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and (2) diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. A 

district court has federal question jurisdiction in “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, 

laws, or treaties of the United States.” Id. at § 1331. A cause of action “arises under federal law 

only when the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint raises issues of federal law.” Hansen v. Blue 

Cross of Cal., 891 F.2d 1384, 1386 (9th Cir. 1989). A district court has diversity jurisdiction 

“where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000 . . . and is between citizens 

of different states, or citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state.” Id.

Here, Plaintiff appears to be alleging that Defendant Wells Fargo engaged in unfair 

business practices in violation of the California Business and Professions Code, the Truth In 

Lending Act (“TILA”), 15 U.S.C. 1601 et seq., and a violation of Title 12 of the United States 

Code (12 U.S.C. --) (“Banks and Banking”). (First Am. Compl., Dkt. No. 12 at 5-6.) 

Plaintiff, however, does not distinguish between the statutes he claims are violated. 

Case 4:18-cv-06189-KAW Document 15 Filed 01/30/19 Page 2 of 4
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

Instead, Plaintiff includes TILA claims in the first and second claims, so that it is unclear exactly 

what relief, claim or cause of action he is pleading under TILA, the California Business and 

Professions Code (if that), state laws prohibiting forgery, and/or Title 12 of the United States 

Code. For example, in the first claim, Plaintiff appears to allege claims under TILA, but also a 

“forgery” claim because in California, there is “no time statu[t]e of limitations on forgery acts” 

and Defendants “knowingly filed false or forged real estate document[s] to a government office.” 

(Id. at 5.) Plaintiff’s citations to support his forgery claim, however, are to California Penal Code 

§§ 115, 470(d), which are not private causes of action. Moreover, in the Second Claim, Plaintiff 

alleges TILA again, but also asserts claims for “Identity theft and a violation of the “Electronic 

funds Act.” Id. at 6. Plaintiff also mentions that there is no statutory time limit for “forgery in CA 

and AZ,” but it is uncertain if Plaintiff is alleging another forgery claim in his Second Claim. Even 

so, there is no direct private right of action for forgery. Finally, Plaintiff cites “civil code 

1189[a][4]” in his second claim. California Civil Code § 1189(a)(4) imposes a civil penalty of 

$10,000 on a notary public “who willfully states as true any material fact that he or she knows to 

be false.” Such a penalty may only be imposed by the Secretary of State following an 

administrative proceeding. Id. Accordingly, there is no private right of action under this 

subsection.

For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff has failed to set forth “a short and plain statement 

of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief” as required by Rule 8 of the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure, as the Court seeks clarity on the specific and distinct statutory 

provisions that Plaintiff is pleading under. Accordingly, the Court concludes that the complaint is

insufficient to satisfy Section 1915 review.

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the allegations in Plaintiff’s complaint are insufficient

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Thus, Plaintiff must clearly provide the legal and factual basis for 

all claims, and must do so by filing an amended complaint by March 15, 2019. If Plaintiff fails to

file an amended complaint by that date, or the amended complaint fails to cure all defects, the case 

Case 4:18-cv-06189-KAW Document 15 Filed 01/30/19 Page 3 of 4
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

will be reassigned to a district judge with the report and recommendation that either the complaint 

be dismissed in whole or in part or the case be dismissed in its entirety. 

In amending the complaint, Plaintiff may wish to contact the Federal Pro Bono Project’s 

Help Desk for assistance—a free service for pro se litigants—by calling (415) 782-8982 to make 

an appointment. While the Help Desk does not provide legal representation, a licensed attorney 

may assist Plaintiff in determining whether there are viable claims, and how to properly plead 

them.

Plaintiff may also wish to consult a manual the court has adopted to assist pro se litigants 

in presenting their case. This manual, and other free information for pro se litigants, is available 

online at: http://cand.uscourts.gov/proselitigants. 

Finally, the case management conference scheduled for March 19, 2019 is continued to 

July 9, 2019 at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 4, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, California. Case 

management conference statements are due on or before July 2, 2019.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 30, 2019

__________________________________

KANDIS A. WESTMORE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:18-cv-06189-KAW Document 15 Filed 01/30/19 Page 4 of 4