Lehmann v. Lee
- James Donato
- 3:24-cv-02107
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Lehmann v. Lee, Judge Donato denied Lehmann’s request to proceed without paying filing fees and dismissed the complaint, allowing amendment by July 12, 2024.
The order directly affected pro se plaintiff Nathan Daniel Lehmann and the defendants named in his complaint, including Sousanna “Tes” Lee, Mark Zuckerberg, Elon Musk, and Paul Sutin.
What happened
Nathan Daniel Lehmann, representing himself, asked to proceed without paying the filing fee in Lehmann v. Lee. His complaint named several defendants and alleged claims including intellectual-property theft, fraud, kidnapping, and homicide.
The court said the complaint was frivolous, sometimes difficult to understand, and lacked a factual basis. It also said the complaint claimed Lehmann invented the Swiffer cleaning product and various internet companies, and referred to an alleged serial killer in Idaho.
Judge James Donato denied Lehmann’s request to proceed without paying the filing fee and dismissed the complaint. The court allowed Lehmann to file an amended complaint by July 12, 2024, and stated that failing to do so would result in dismissal of the case with prejudice.
The detailed version
- Lehmann v. Lee · No. 3:24-cv-02107
- James Donato
- June 25, 2024
Background
Nathan Daniel Lehmann, who was representing himself, applied to proceed without paying the filing fee. The complaint named Sousanna “Tes” Lee and other defendants, including Mark Zuckerberg, Elon Musk, and Paul Sutin. It alleged, among other things, “intellectual property theft, fraud, kidnapping, homicide.” The complaint also said Lehmann invented the Swiffer cleaning product and various internet companies, and referred to an alleged serial killer in Idaho.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), it may dismiss a case during review of an application to proceed without paying the filing fee if the action is frivolous, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks money from a defendant protected from that type of claim. The court said it considers whether the alleged wrong has an arguable factual and legal basis, even when a complaint is poorly written. It concluded that Lehmann’s complaint was frivolous, was sometimes not readily comprehensible, and lacked any basis in fact.
Disposition
Judge James Donato denied the application to proceed without paying the filing fee and dismissed the complaint. The order permitted Lehmann to file an amended complaint by July 12, 2024. It stated that failure to amend by that date would result in dismissal of the case with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.