Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-00718/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-00718-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 18:241 Conspiracy Against Citizen Rights

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LIAM MEYER TRUST, LIAM MEYER,

Plaintiff,

v.

SIMON CHAN, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 2:23-cv-00718-DAD-JDP (PS)

ORDER

GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION 

TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS, 

SCREENING HIS COMPLAINT, AND 

GRANTING LEAVE TO AMEND

ECF Nos. 1 & 2

Plaintiff brings this action against six defendants, who operate a piece of real estate in 

Sacramento. ECF No. 1 at 3. He claims that these defendants violated his rights under the 

Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”). His complaint fails meet federal 

pleading standards, but I will offer him an opportunity to amend before recommending that this 

action be dismissed. I will also grant his application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, 

which makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(a)(1) and (2).

Screening and Pleading Requirements

A federal court must screen the complaint of any claimant seeking permission to proceed 

in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The court must identify any cognizable claims and 

dismiss any portion of the complaint that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon 

which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 

relief. Id.

Case 2:23-cv-00718-DC-JDP Document 3 Filed 10/02/24 Page 1 of 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

2

A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief,

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 

face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility standard does not 

require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 

662, 678 (2009). If the allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere 

possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not 

identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024, 

1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that 

give rise to an enforceable right to relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264 

n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (citations omitted). 

The court must construe a pro se litigant’s complaint liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 

U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). The court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s complaint “if it 

appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which

would entitle him to relief.” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2017). 

However, “‘a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements 

of the claim that were not initially pled.’” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 

1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)).

Analysis

Plaintiff’s complaint includes numerous pages citing legal principles, but few explaining 

the facts underlying the suit. As best I can tell, plaintiff entered an agreement to purchase a piece 

of real estate in September 2019 and certain disclosures, mandatory under state law, were not 

made. ECF No. 1 at 15-17. Based on the seller’s failure to make these representations, plaintiff 

incurred substantial losses. Id. These allegations, however, are insufficient to state a civil RICO 

claim. One of the required elements of such a claim is that the plaintiff plead and prove the 

existence of a ‘pattern’ of racketeering activity. 18 U.S.C. §§ 1962(b)-(c). Such a pattern 

requires at least two instances of racketeering activity within ten years of each other and if, as 

here, the activities are based on fraudulent conduct, they must be alleged with particularity under 

the heightened pleading standards of Rule 9(b). See Schreiber Distrib. Co. v. ServWell Furniture 

Case 2:23-cv-00718-DC-JDP Document 3 Filed 10/02/24 Page 2 of 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

3

Co., 806 F.2d 1393, 1400-01 (9th Cir. 2004). Plaintiff has failed to carry that burden insofar as 

the complaint fails to specify what other racketeering activities the defendants have allegedly 

engaged in, when they engaged in those activities, and how each individual defendant participated 

in the illegal acts. See Pineda v. Saxon Mortgage Services, No. SACV 08-1187 JVS (ANx), 2008 

U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102439, *11 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2008) (“It is not enough for [plaintiff] to rely 

on mere labels and conclusions. [Plaintiff] cannot simply allege general acts of wrongdoing 

without expressly identifying which acts constitute ‘predicate acts’ for his RICO claim.”) 

(internal citations and quotation marks omitted). 

Additionally, the complaint contains other deficiencies. First, plaintiff appears to be 

asserting claims on behalf of Liam Meyer Trust. “A trustee may not represent a trust pro se in 

federal court.” Sundby v. Marquee Funding Grp., No. 21-55504, No. 21-55582, 2022 WL 

4826445, at *1 (9th Cir. Oct. 3, 2022) (citing C.E. Pope Equity Trust v. United States, 818 F.2d 

696, 697 (9th Cir. 1987)). Second, I recognize that plaintiff has also brought a number of state 

law claims, but he has yet to assert a properly pleaded federal cause of action that would permit 

supplemental jurisdiction over these state claims. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 (“The district courts 

shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties 

of the United States.”), 1367(a) (where the district court has original jurisdiction, it “shall have 

supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action within 

such original jurisdiction . . . .”). Finally, the complaint fails to establish diversity of the parties. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 1332; Bautista v. Pan Am. World Airlines, Inc., 828 F.2d 546, 552 (9th Cir. 

1987). Accordingly, plaintiff has not established the court’s jurisdiction over his state law claim.

I will allow plaintiff a chance to amend his complaint to address these deficiencies before 

recommending that this action be dismissed. If plaintiff decides to file an amended complaint, the 

amended complaint will supersede the current complaint. See Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 

896, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc). This means that the amended complaint will need to be

complete on its face without reference to the prior pleading. See E.D. Cal. Local Rule 220. Once 

an amended complaint is filed, the current complaint no longer serves any function. Therefore, in 

an amended complaint, as in an original complaint, plaintiff will need to assert each claim and 

Case 2:23-cv-00718-DC-JDP Document 3 Filed 10/02/24 Page 3 of 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

4

allege each defendant’s involvement in sufficient detail. The amended complaint should be titled 

“First Amended Complaint” and refer to the appropriate case number. If plaintiff does not file an 

amended complaint, I will recommend that this action be dismissed. 

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, is granted. 

2. Within thirty days from the service of this order, plaintiff must either file an 

amended complaint or advise the court he wishes to stand by his current complaint. If he selects 

the latter option, I will recommend that this action be dismissed. 

3. Failure to comply with this order will result in the dismissal of this action.

4. The Clerk of Court is directed to send plaintiff a new form complaint.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 1, 2024 

JEREMY D. PETERSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:23-cv-00718-DC-JDP Document 3 Filed 10/02/24 Page 4 of 4