Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-mc-80124/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-mc-80124-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
In the Matter of Stephanie Janel Martin
In Re

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

IN THE MATTER OF STEPHANIE 

JANEL MARTIN,

Case No. 19-mc-80124-WHO 

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION AND 

DISMISSING CASE

Re: Dkt. No. 6

Plaintiff Stephanie Janel Martin has failed to address the deficiencies in her complaint that 

the Hon. Sallie Kim identified in the Order Screening Complaint Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, 

and Martin did not respond to Judge Kim’s Referral for Reassignment and Report and 

Recommendation for Dismissal. [Dkt. Nos. 3, 6]. For the reasons set forth in those Orders, with 

which I agree in full, the complaint is dismissed with prejudice.

On May 10, 2019, Martin filed a “Final Notice of Bankruptcy and Insolvency and Probate 

Action” and a “Final Decree and Order” that are signed by Martin as “Chief Magistrate.” [Dkt. 

Nos. 1 and 2]. The filings appear to request documentation and information from both the state of 

California and the California Franchise Tax Board and purport to award Martin millions of dollars 

against the Franchise Tax Board for alleged failures related to her tax returns. Construing 

Martin’s filings liberally as a complaint, Judge Kim found that Martin had failed to state a valid 

claim for relief because she did not provide facts of any kind, specify what particular rights or 

laws were violated, identify particular defendants, or state how she was harmed. [Dkt. No. 3]. 

Martin was given until June 17, 2019, to amend her complaint and address the deficiencies 

identified. Id.

Martin never filed an amended complaint. Instead, on May 16, 2019 she filed a “Notice 

Case 3:19-mc-80124-WHO Document 8 Filed 08/05/19 Page 1 of 2
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

Re: UCC Financing Statement” that purported to close this matter. [Dkt. No. 4]. Martin also 

appended a form to the notice listing the “State of California, Office of Governor” and the “State 

of California Franchise Tax Board” as debtors who together owe Martin 51 million dollars. Id. 

On June 17, 2019, Martin filed an “Official Notice of Change of Venue” where she stated that this 

court lacks jurisdiction and purported to vacate Judge Kim’s screening order. [Dkt. No. 5].

Because Martin has not consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge, and

defendants have not been served and therefore have not made an election regarding the jurisdiction

of a magistrate judge, Judge Kim ordered the clerk of court to reassign this case to a district judge. 

Referral for Reassignment and Report and Recommendation for Dismissal (“R&R Order”) [Dkt. 

No. 6]. On June 21, 2019, this case was reassigned to me. [Dkt. No. 7]. As the time for 

objections has passed and no objections have been filed, I now consider Judge Kim’s report and 

recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.

Judge Kim held that Martin’s additional filings did not address any of the deficiencies 

outlined in the screening order and that Martin did not provide facts of any kind, specify what 

particular rights or laws were violated, identify particular defendants, or state how she has been 

harmed. R&R Order at 3. Judge Kim found that Martin’s pleadings lacked an arguable basis in 

both law and fact. Id. I agree.

Judge Kim recommends that I dismiss this case with prejudice because Martin has already 

been given an opportunity to amend her pleadings to state a claim. Id. at 3-4. As the judge to 

whom this case was assigned, I find Judge Kim’s report thorough and correct; I adopt it in every 

respect. The complaint is dismissed with prejudice, and judgment shall be entered accordingly.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 5, 2019

William H. Orrick

United States District Judge

Case 3:19-mc-80124-WHO Document 8 Filed 08/05/19 Page 2 of 2