Jessica King -v- Federal Communications Commission
- James Donato
- 3:24-cv-03397
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Jessica King v. Federal Communications Commission, Judge Illman ordered a pro se plaintiff to amend an incomprehensible complaint within 45 days.
Jessica King must file an amended complaint within 45 days if she wishes to continue the action. The named defendants remain parties at this stage, because the court ordered amendment rather than dismissing the action.
What happened
Jessica King sued the Federal Communications Commission and other defendants, seeking money and court-ordered relief. She was proceeding without a lawyer, and the court had allowed her to proceed without paying the filing fee.
The court reviewed the complaint as required for cases filed without a filing fee. It found that the 262-page complaint was repetitive, included irrelevant material, and was largely incomprehensible, so it did not provide the short, plain explanation required by the federal rules. The court also found that some allegations were irrational or wholly incredible.
The court ordered Jessica King to file an amended complaint within 45 days. The order did not dismiss the case at that time; it stated that failure to file on time would lead Judge Robert M. Illman to issue a recommendation that the action be dismissed.
The detailed version
- Jessica King -v- Federal Communications Commission · No. 3:24-cv-03397
- James Donato
- June 21, 2024
Background
Jessica King, proceeding without a lawyer, brought an action seeking injunctive and monetary relief against twelve defendants, including the Federal Communications Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, Meta Platforms, Inc., NVIDIA Corporation, Mazar Technologies, Inc., Google, Secutus Technologies, Via Path/Global Tel-Link, Inter Active Corporate, Match Group, Inc., Bumble, Inc., and Meet Group, Inc. The court had previously granted her application to proceed without paying the filing fee.
Screening analysis
Because King was proceeding without paying the filing fee, the court was required to review the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). That statute permits dismissal at the screening stage if a complaint is frivolous, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks money from a defendant protected from such relief.
The court focused on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, which requires a short and plain statement of the claim and allegations that are simple, concise, and direct. The court found that King's 262-page complaint was repetitive, contained blocks of irrelevant text, and was largely incomprehensible. Although it presented numerous legal theories, the court could not determine what circumstances supposedly gave rise to the different claims. The court therefore found that the complaint failed to state a short and plain claim in violation of Rule 8.
The court also concluded that the complaint was frivolous because its allegations were indecipherable and included assertions that, in the court's view, approached the irrational or wholly incredible. The opinion gave as an example an allegation that King had been part of a military-base experiment involving a scheme to use and exploit children from a young age.
Disposition
The court ordered King to file an amended complaint that states a short and plain claim for relief and uses simple, direct, and concise allegations. She was given 45 days from the date of the order to do so. The court stated that if she did not timely file an amended complaint, the undersigned judge would issue a Report and Recommendation that the action be dismissed. The order itself did not dismiss the action.
The order was signed by United States Magistrate Judge Robert M. Illman.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.