Swann v. Intel Problems & Solutions
- Kandis Westmore
- 4:23-cv-06625
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Swann v. Intel Problems & Solutions, Judge Westmore found the complaint deficient on screening and ordered Blake O’Bryan Swann to amend it by April 11, 2025.
Blake O’Bryan Swann must file an amended complaint by April 11, 2025, or face a possible later recommendation of dismissal. The case management conference was continued, affecting the case schedule.
What happened
In Blake O’Bryan Swann v. Intel Problems & Solutions, et al., Swann alleged that a computer he purchased and sent away was not returned. He described the case as involving “consumer law” and sought economic and emotional damages, but the complaint referred to an affidavit that was not filed and did not identify the specific consumer law involved.
The court found that the complaint did not provide enough facts or legal information to satisfy the federal screening requirements and the rule requiring a short, plain statement of the claim. The court did not dismiss the case in this order. Instead, it required Swann to file an amended complaint by April 11, 2025, and warned that failure to correct the problems could lead to a recommendation that some or all of the case be dismissed.
Judge Kandis Westmore also continued the case management conference from March 18, 2025, to August 5, 2025, and set a July 29, 2025 deadline for case management statements.
The detailed version
- Swann v. Intel Problems & Solutions · No. 4:23-cv-06625
- Kandis Westmore
- Mar. 12, 2025
Background
Blake O’Bryan Swann filed the action on December 26, 2023, along with an application to proceed without paying the filing fee. The court granted that application on February 20, 2025, after allowing several extensions to amend it. The order then screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
Swann appeared to allege that a computer he purchased and “sent off” was never returned. He asserted that the matter involved “consumer law” and claimed economic and emotional distress damages. The complaint referred to an “affidavit of complaint” for the facts, but that document had not been filed. The complaint also did not identify the specific consumer law supporting each claim.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that federal courts may hear only cases within their subject-matter jurisdiction. The possible bases discussed were federal-question jurisdiction and diversity jurisdiction. The court also explained that the screening statute requires dismissal of an action that is frivolous, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks money from a defendant who is immune from such relief.
The court concluded that it could not determine the facts forming the basis of the lawsuit because the referenced affidavit was missing. It further concluded that labeling a claim only as “consumer law” did not identify the legal basis for the claim. As a result, the complaint failed to provide the short and plain statement required by Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and was insufficient under the screening statute.
Disposition
The court did not dismiss the complaint at this stage. It required Swann to file an amended complaint by April 11, 2025, clearly stating the factual and legal basis for all claims. The order states that if Swann does not timely amend, or if the amended complaint does not correct all defects, the case will be reassigned to a district judge with a report and recommendation that the complaint be dismissed in whole or in part or that the entire case be dismissed.
The court also continued the case management conference from March 18, 2025, to August 5, 2025, at 1:30 p.m. Case management statements are due by July 29, 2025. The order noted that Swann could contact the Federal Pro Bono Project’s Help Desk and consult the court’s manual for people litigating without lawyers.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.