Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-00505/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-00505-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Thomas Perez
Defendant
Brian Stretch
Defendant
Franklin H. Wright
Plaintiff

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 

FRANKLIN H. WRIGHT, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

BRIAN STRETCH, et al., 

 Defendants. 

________________________________/ 

No. C 16-505 CW 

ORDER DISMISSING 

COMPLAINTS 

FRANKLIN H. WRIGHT, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

THOMAS E. PEREZ, et al., 

 Defendants. 

________________________________/ 

No. C 16-513 CW 

Plaintiff Franklin H. Wright has been granted in forma 

pauperis status in both of the above-captioned cases. Under this 

statute, the Court shall dismiss such a case "at any time" if it 

determines that it "(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to 

state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks 

monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such 

relief." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(b). The Court finds that both 

operative complaints fail to state a claim on which relief may be 

granted. Thus, the Court dismisses both complaints. 

I. Wright v. Stretch, Case No. 16-505 

a. Background 

In this case, Plaintiff filed suit against Brian Stretch, 

acting United States Attorney for the Northern District of 

Case 4:16-cv-00505-CW Document 21 Filed 04/04/16 Page 1 of 8
United States District Court 

For the Northern District of California 

 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 

California, and Thomas Perez, Secretary of the United States 

Department of Labor. The judge previously assigned to this case 

dismissed the original complaint with leave to amend. 

In his original complaint, Plaintiff described both a 

previously-filed Illinois bankruptcy and "FTCA claim letters re: 

employment conditions." Docket No. 1, Complaint at 2-3. He 

sought mandamus to compel employees within the Department of 

Justice or the Department of Labor, or both, to answer various 

questions. Id. at 3, 5-6. He alleged that both departments owed 

him investigations and the results of their investigations. Id. 

at 4. He also discussed "unlawful employer actions" and requested 

monetary remedies, reputational correction and further prosecution 

of former employers. Id. at 6-7. 

The court concluded that Plaintiff's complaint was "frivolous 

or fail[ed] to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." 

Docket No. 6, February 8, 2016 Order at 2. It identified several 

shortcomings, including that Plaintiff did not describe the 

connection between the Illinois litigation and this case, id. at 

2, Plaintiff did not explain "how his previous tort claims or 

bankruptcy filings obligated these defendants to investigate his 

concerns," id. at 3, and Plaintiff provided no authority for 

seeking to compel Defendants to answer his list of questions, id. 

In his First Amended Complaint (1AC), Docket No. 7, at issue 

here, Plaintiff requests relief under 28 U.S.C. § 1361, the 

section authorizing district court mandamus actions. As 

background, Plaintiff explains that, based on "plaintiff-supplied 

and docketed memos in the Chicago-based bankruptcy, an U.S. 

Trustee operating under 11 U.S.C. Sec. 704(a) would investigate 

Case 4:16-cv-00505-CW Document 21 Filed 04/04/16 Page 2 of 8
United States District Court 

For the Northern District of California 

 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 

the financial affairs of a litigant in the bankruptcy process and 

subsequently commence lawsuits on the beneficiary's behalf, 

assuming compelling reasons were identified." Id. at 4. 

Plaintiff alleges that the United States Trustee, who is not a 

Defendant in this case, was obliged to investigate claims stemming 

from "anecdotal facts" in Plaintiff's bankruptcy filings; these 

"facts" include workplace harms allegedly perpetrated by previous 

employers based in northern California, including harassment, 

underpayment and a hostile work environment. Id. at 4-5. 

Plaintiff asks the Court to compel investigation of these 

underlying alleged employer wrongs, to present the results to 

Plaintiff, and to compel the Department of Justice and the 

Department of Labor to present to Plaintiff the status of his 

"F.T.C.A. claim letters." Id. at 10.1

Plaintiff claims certain duties owed to him. He cites 28 

U.S.C. § 530B, which describes "Ethical standards for attorneys 

for the Government," California Business and Professions Code 

sections 6067-68, which describe general duties of attorneys and 

their oath, and general California case law concerning fiduciary 

duties. Section 6068(h) states that it is the duty of an attorney 

"[n]ever to reject, for any consideration personal to himself or 

herself, the cause of the defenseless or the oppressed." 

Plaintiff then lists several instances in which he was 

"defenseless," namely when he was a criminal defendant and when he 

 1 Plaintiff cites 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b), which states that, 

before filing a tort claim against the United States, the claim 

must be presented in writing to the appropriate federal agency. 

Id. at 8. 

Case 4:16-cv-00505-CW Document 21 Filed 04/04/16 Page 3 of 8
United States District Court 

For the Northern District of California 

 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 

was attacked. 1AC at 6-7. Plaintiff explains that, because he 

has been "defenseless" or "oppressed," the United States Attorney 

"cannot reject his request to remedy." Id. at 9. Section 6068(m) 

states that it is the duty of an attorney to "respond promptly to 

reasonable status inquiries of clients and to keep clients 

reasonably informed of significant developments in matters with 

regard to which the attorney has agreed to provide legal 

services." Plaintiff explains that he is the Department of 

Justice's "de facto client" because he has "paid taxes, obeys the 

law, the U.S. Attorneys' Office is funded by taxes, plaintiff's 

claims are true and actual and were recognized as such by an Ohiobased Federal court." Id. at 7 & n.3. 

Plaintiff also presents allegations regarding Defendants' 

knowledge of his grievances. Plaintiff states that attorneys have 

been informed of his claims through his Ohio case and through his 

"3 FTCA claim letters filed with both D.C.-based DOJ offices and 

the San Francisco Offices of the U.S. Attorney." Id. at 7. He 

explains that because the United States Trustee "would have 

required Bay Area-based assistance at the time the memoranda were 

filed . . . in carrying out their duty to investigate," it is 

"reasonable to assume that the U.S. Attorney for the Northern 

District of California or an unknown-to-plaintiff title within the 

U.S. Department of Justice (N.D. Cal.) would have been contacted 

to assist in investigation." Id. at 8. 

b. Discussion 

A writ of mandamus may be granted when (1) "the plaintiff's 

claim is clear and certain"; (2) the duty is "ministerial and so 

plainly prescribed as to be free from doubt"; and (3) "no other 

Case 4:16-cv-00505-CW Document 21 Filed 04/04/16 Page 4 of 8
United States District Court 

For the Northern District of California 

 5 

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 

adequate remedy is available." Or. Nat. Res. Council v. Harrell, 

52 F.3d 1499, 1508 (9th Cir. 1995). The "extraordinary remedy of 

mandamus lies within the discretion of the trial court," even 

where a Plaintiff satisfies these three requirements. Id. 

Here, Plaintiff's allegations remain insufficient as to the 

duty Defendants owe to Plaintiff. His theory seems to be as 

follows. In his bankruptcy case, he mentioned potential workplace 

wrongs. As a result, the United States Trustee was obliged to 

commence litigation against Plaintiff's former employers or at 

least investigate these allegations of workplace wrongs. 

Defendants Brian Stretch and Thomas Perez knew about the United 

States Trustee's actions relating to Plaintiff and his former 

employers. Because Plaintiff had been "defenseless" in the past, 

Defendants cannot turn their back on Plaintiff. Alternatively, 

because Plaintiff is a "de facto client" of various governmental 

departments, he is entitled to their communication and 

professional services. Thus, Defendants owe Plaintiff a duty to 

answer his questions and to investigate his claims. 

There are many flaws with this theory. First, Plaintiff 

cites no law stating that the United States Trustee was obliged to 

commence litigation against or investigate Plaintiff's former 

employers. Instead, under the subsection Plaintiff cites, the 

Trustee is obliged to "investigate the financial affairs of the 

debtor." 11 U.S.C. § 704(a)(4). Second, an attorney's duty not 

to reject the cause of the defenseless or oppressed for personal 

reasons does not mean that all attorneys must investigate 

Plaintiff's claims. Third, there is no de facto attorney-client 

relationship based on paying taxes. Fourth, Plaintiff has pointed 

Case 4:16-cv-00505-CW Document 21 Filed 04/04/16 Page 5 of 8
United States District Court 

For the Northern District of California 

 6 

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 

to no other possible basis for a fiduciary relationship. None of 

Plaintiff's theories amount to a duty that any Defendant owes 

Plaintiff to investigate his claims or to communicate with him. 

Because Plaintiff's claim is not "clear and certain," and 

because the duties alleged are not "ministerial and so plainly 

prescribed as to be free from doubt," the Court DISMISSES 

Plaintiff's 1AC. Because Plaintiff has again failed to allege a 

duty, it is dismissed with prejudice. 

II. Case No. 16-513 

This case is another mandamus action that Plaintiff filed 

against both Thomas Perez and Brian Stretch, but also against the 

United States Interagency Council on Homelessness.2 The judge 

previously assigned this case granted Plaintiff in forma pauperis 

status and directed service. The case was later transferred to 

this Court as related to case number 16-505. The Court may 

perform the in forma pauperis screening described above at any 

time. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(b). 

In his Complaint, Plaintiff lists several instances in which 

he was harassed, defamed or otherwise mistreated while living in 

northern California. He had filed another case in the Northern 

District of California, Wright v. United States Interagency 

Council on Homelessness, No. 14-353, "in order to inform empowered 

and accountable governmental agencies of unlawful activity where 

Plaintiff was a victim or witness." Docket No. 1, Complaint at 3. 

Plaintiff seeks to compel "employees and persons holding presumed 

 2 The Complaint also mentions several other governmental 

agencies and individuals. 

Case 4:16-cv-00505-CW Document 21 Filed 04/04/16 Page 6 of 8
United States District Court 

For the Northern District of California 

 7 

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 

accountability within sub-entities of the U.S. DOJ, U.S. Dept. of 

Labor, and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and all 

other accountable agencies to answer specific questions Plaintiff 

maintains and poses herein, which would have been asked during 

proper investigation," citing 28 U.S.C. § 535 and Federal Rule of 

Evidence 201(e), and to "compel appropriate corrective action." 

Id.3 Plaintiff seeks to compel Defendants to answer a list of 

enumerated questions. Complaint at 5-6. Plaintiff also seeks "to 

compel the F.B.I., U.S. Dept. of H&HS, and the acting U.S. 

Attorney for the Northern District of California to adjoin 

gathered evidence to Plaintiff's State-court filed findings in 

preparation for presentment to the Grand Jury for indictment and 

for arrest of key and accountable personnel." Id. at 7. Further, 

Plaintiff wishes Defendants to "present to Plaintiff an action 

plan based upon answers to Plaintiff's posed questions to remedy 

both 1) damage caused to Plaintiff's life by named entities in 

state-based cases or inform petitioner-plaintiff of reasons for 

borrowing petitioner's time and 2) plan to remedy apparent 

criminal activity within S.F.-based governmental and 501c3 

organizations." Id. at 7-8. 

This Complaint fails to state a claim. As in case number 16-

505, discussed above, Plaintiff describes general fiduciary duty 

law, 28 U.S.C. § 530B and California Business and Professions Code 

section 6068, as the basis for Defendants' duties to Plaintiff. 

 3 Notably, 28 U.S.C. § 535 states that the Attorney General 

and the Federal Bureau of Investigation "may investigate any 

violation of Federal criminal law involving Government officers 

and employees"; Federal Rule of Evidence 201 governs judicial 

notice of adjudicative facts. 

Case 4:16-cv-00505-CW Document 21 Filed 04/04/16 Page 7 of 8
United States District Court 

For the Northern District of California 

 8 

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 

As explained above, none of these citations demonstrates that 

Defendants have a duty toward Plaintiff. Plaintiff also cites 28 

U.S.C. § 547, which lists the duties of a United States Attorney. 

Contrary to Plaintiff's assertion, this statute does not 

demonstrate that any Defendant has a "duty to correct" any of the 

alleged wrongs Plaintiff describes. 

In addition, it is not clear who Plaintiff is suing or why 

mandamus is the only available remedy. 

For all these reasons, the Complaint in this case is 

DISMISSED. Because Plaintiff has not yet had an opportunity to 

amend, it is dismissed with leave to amend. 

III. Conclusion 

The Court DISMISSES Plaintiff's 1AC in Case Number 16-505. 

The Court will direct entry of judgment in this case. 

The Court DISMISSES Plaintiff's Complaint in Case Number 16-

513. If Plaintiff chooses to amend his Complaint, he must do so 

within thirty days of this order. Failure to amend timely shall 

result in dismissal of this action with prejudice pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 

Dated: April 4, 2016 

CLAUDIA WILKEN 

United States District Judge 

 

Case 4:16-cv-00505-CW Document 21 Filed 04/04/16 Page 8 of 8