Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-03298/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-03298-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kel Livson
Defendant
Kaleb McIntosh
Plaintiff
Kong Pham
Defendant
Brandon Shrair
Defendant

Document Text:

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KALEB MCINTOSH,

Plaintiff,

 v.

KONG PHAM, KEL LIVSON, AND

BRANDON SHRAIR

Defendants. /

No. C 19-00243 WHA

Related to

No. C 19-03298 WHA

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Pro se plaintiff Kaleb McIntosh initiated this action against defendants Kong Pham, Kel

Livson, and Brandon Shrair on January 10, 2019 alleging violations of his First Amendment

rights (Case No. 19-00243, Dkt. No. 1). A screening order dismissed plaintiff’s complaint with

leave to amend for failure to state a claim under federal law (Dkt. No. 6). 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires “a short and plain statement of the

claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” While a complaint need not provide

detailed factual allegations, it is “a plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his

‘entitle[ment] to relief.” Bell v. Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). “Labels

and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Id. 

Rather, the plaintiff must provide sufficient factual allegations “to state a claim to relief that is

plausible on its face.” Id. at 570. 

Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on June 11, 2019 alleging violations of 18 U.S.C.

§§ 1465, 1466, and 15 U.S.C. § 54 (Case No. 19-03298, Dkt. No. 1). Title 18 of the United

Case 3:19-cv-03298-WHA Document 10 Filed 07/01/19 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

States Code is the criminal code of the federal government. A private citizen lacks a judicially

cognizable interest in the prosecution or nonprosecution of another, and as such, may not

initiate an action under this title. Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 619 (1973).

Section 54 of Title 15 of the United States Code addresses the penalties for false

advertising. Plaintiff alleges in the amended complaint that defendants’ company, Jumpcut

Academy, “is false advertising and lying to their customers” (Amd. Compl. at 6 ¶ 2). He also

alleges “they are advocating illegal actions and false advertising a way to make a six figure

salary” (id. at 6 ¶ 6). It not clear what claim plaintiff seeks to assert as section 54 only

addresses the penalties for false advertising.

The court orders plaintiff to show cause why this action should not be dismissed due to

failure to properly amend the complaint. Plaintiff SHALL FILE A RESPONSE to the order by

JULY 15, 2019 AT NOON. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 1, 2019. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:19-cv-03298-WHA Document 10 Filed 07/01/19 Page 2 of 2