Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-02926/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-02926-0/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

SILVIA A. BRANDON PEREZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 19-cv-02926-JD 

ORDER RE IFP APPLICATION, 

COMPLAINT AND INJUNCTION 

REQUEST

Re: Dkt. Nos. 2, 7

Pro se plaintiff Siliva Brandon Perez filed a first amended complaint alleging federal and 

state law claims for government corruption, racism, hate crimes, incitement to violence, and 

emotional distress. Dkt. No. 4. The claims are brought against an array of California state and 

Alameda County entities, and several neighbors. Perez submitted an application to proceed in 

forma pauperis (“IFP”) in conjunction with her lawsuit. Dkt. No. 2. She also recently filed an ex 

parte “emergency injunction” that largely repeats, in summary form, the allegations in the 

amended complaint. Dkt. No. 7.

The IFP application is denied and the complaint is dismissed with leave to amend. In 

determining whether IFP status should be granted, the Court may dismiss a complaint that fails to 

state a claim on which relief may be granted, among other grounds. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 

The standard is the same as under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Watison v. Carter, 

668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012). While the Court liberally construes pro se lawsuits such as 

this one, a pro se plaintiff must still state facts sufficient to allege a plausible claim. Nguyen 

Gardner v. Chevron Capital Corp., No. 15-CV-01514-JD, 2015 WL 12976114, at *1 (N.D. Cal. 

Aug. 27, 2015).

Even if given every benefit of the doubt, the amended complaint does not allege facts that 

plausibly state a federal claim. The complaint is a rambling narrative that never coalesces into 

Case 3:19-cv-02926-JD Document 8 Filed 10/30/19 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 California

specific factual allegations tied to a cause of action. Perez says that she is “an ordained female 

priest according to the rites of the Catholic Church,” and has experienced harassment, 

discrimination and other conduct based on her gender, age, race, and religion. Dkt. No. 4 ¶¶ 13, 

29, 37. But these allegations are entirely conclusory, and the complaint does not allege any facts 

in support of them. The most the Court can determine is that Perez has had building code and 

permitting disputes with various government entities related to a residential property in Alameda 

County. There also appear to be tensions between Perez and the neighbors about the use of the 

property. While the amended complaint describes a number of interactions that Perez found 

uncivil and upsetting, it never states facts plausibly alleging that any defendant violated a federal

civil rights, discrimination or other law vis-a-vis Perez. 

Consequently, IFP status is not warranted and the federal claims are dismissed with leave 

to amend. Because the federal claims were the ostensible basis of the Court’s jurisdiction, it 

declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

The request for an injunction is denied for the same reasons. In the absence of a plausible 

claim, Perez cannot show a likelihood of success on the merits, or that she has raised a serious

question, that would warrant the extraordinary relief of an injunction. Airbnb, Inc., v. City and 

County of San Francisco, 217 F. Supp. 3d 1066, 1071-72 (N.D. Cal. 2016). The injunction 

request also does not identify a plausible and likely threat of irreparable harm. Id. at 1072. 

If Perez would like to file a second amended complaint that responds to the concerns stated 

in this order, she must file a revised complaint by November 18, 2019. Failure to meet that 

deadline will result in dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(b). Perez may not file any other 

injunction requests or motions pending further order of the Court. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 30, 2019

JAMES DONATO

United States District Judge

Case 3:19-cv-02926-JD Document 8 Filed 10/30/19 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 California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SILVIA A BRANDON PEREZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 19-cv-02926-JD 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. 

District Court, Northern District of California.

That on October 30, 2019, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by 

placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by 

depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery 

receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Silvia A Brandon Perez

2997 Hardeman Street

Hayward, CA 94541 

Dated: October 30, 2019

Susan Y. Soong

Clerk, United States District Court

By:________________________

LISA R. CLARK, Deputy Clerk to the 

Honorable JAMES DONATO

Case 3:19-cv-02926-JD Document 8 Filed 10/30/19 Page 3 of 3