Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-01324/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-01324-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Mary Lee Klug
Plaintiff
Donald Trump
Defendant
Jacqueline D. Watson
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

JACQUELINE D. WATSON

Plaintiffs,

v.

DONALD TRUMP,

Defendant.

Case No.19-cv-01324-JSC 

SECTION 1915 SCREENING OF 

INITIAL COMPLAINT

Re: Dkt. No. 1

Ms. Jacqueline D. Watson1sues the President of the United States, Donald Trump, along 

with three unnamed “United States Presidents” for unspecified violations. (Dkt. No. 1.) Having 

granted Ms. Watson’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, (see Dkt. No. 6), the Court now 

screens the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and concludes that the complaint is deficient 

for the reasons stated below. 

COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS

The complaint does not contain a plain statement of facts and allegations. Ms. Watson’s

“Statement of Facts,” alleges, in its entirety:

Someone hass something illegal that controls my thinking and my 

organs, it’s not what was done to me, it’s the person [sic]. These 

people are Homosexual, I’m trying to find my friend for 15 years his 

name is William Dugoni Jr. at the Pacific School of Dentistry, and 

these people need to know to be careful with everyone please let the 

Federal police [sic]. 

I will let you no more, not at this time [sic]

I don’t know if he hass a wife (ie) what ever [sic]

 

1 Ms. Watson brings her complaint on behalf of herself and her “AKA” Mary Lee Klug. In a 

separate filing, Ms. Watson clarifies that she and Mary Lee Klug are “just one person.” (See Dkt. 

No. 5 at 1.) 

Case 3:19-cv-01324-JSC Document 11 Filed 03/27/19 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

(Dkt. No. 1 at 3-4.) Elsewhere in the complaint Ms. Watson states: “I’m on crack cocain behind 

those’s people I don’t want to be like this, I need your and his help to live longer Washington 

Hospital in Fremont, Cal [sic].” (Id. at 1.) Ms. Watson’s “First Claim” alleges “Theafing from 

my stencil and mane chip [sic].” (Id. at 5.) 

After filing her complaint, Ms. Watson filed three documents consisting of handwritten 

statements asserting various grievances. (See Dkt. Nos. 7, 8, 10.) Ms. Watson also submitted 

copies of excerpts from the January 2019 issue of the Christian Science Sentinel and an article 

from the San Francisco Examiner. (See Dkt. No. 8.) The additional statements and photocopies 

likewise do not constitute a plain statement of facts and allegations. 

LEGAL STANDARD

The Court has a continuing duty to dismiss any case in which a party is proceeding in 

forma pauperis upon a determination that the case is: (1) 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. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). The standard of review under 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(e)(2) mirrors that of Rule 12(b)(6). Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000). 

Thus, the complaint must allege “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). A facial plausibility standard is not 

a “probability requirement” but mandates “more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted 

unlawfully.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal quotation marks and citations 

omitted). To avoid dismissal, a complaint must contain more than “naked assertion[s],” “labels 

and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action.” Twombly, 550 

U.S. at 555-57. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that 

allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct 

alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.

When a plaintiff files a complaint without being represented by a lawyer, the court 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) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Upon 

dismissal, self-represented plaintiffs proceeding in forma pauperis must be given leave to “to 

Case 3:19-cv-01324-JSC Document 11 Filed 03/27/19 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

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, 1228 n.9 (9th Cir. 1984) (internal 

quotation marks and citation omitted).

DISCUSSION

The Court is sympathetic to Ms. Watson’s condition; however, neither the complaint nor 

the supplemental filings provide any factual allegations from which the Court can discern a 

plausible claim for relief. In the absence of any such allegations, Ms. Watson’s complaint fails. 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, Ms. Watson’s complaint fails section 1915 review. Ms. 

Watson may file an amended complaint within 30 days; her amended complaint must identify her

claims and include a plain statement of facts in support. The Court encourages Ms. Watson to 

seek free assistance from the Northern District’s Legal Help Center, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, 

15th Floor, Room 2796, San Francisco, CA 94102. Ms. Watson can make an appointment in 

person or by calling (415) 792-8982.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 27, 2019

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:19-cv-01324-JSC Document 11 Filed 03/27/19 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JACQUELINE D. WATSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

DONALD TRUMP,

Defendant.

Case No. 19-cv-01324-JSC 

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 March 27, 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.

Jacqueline D. Watson

1179 Mission Street

San Francisco, CA 94103 

Dated: March 27, 2019

Susan Y. Soong

Clerk, United States District Court

By:________________________

Ada Means, Deputy Clerk to the 

Honorable JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY

Case 3:19-cv-01324-JSC Document 11 Filed 03/27/19 Page 4 of 4