Cofer v. Brenda Gayle Martin
- Joseph Spero
- 3:25-cv-07239
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 6
In Erika Nicole Cofer v. Brenda Gayle Martin, Judge Spero ordered Cofer to explain or amend her complaint before possible dismissal for not showing federal jurisdiction.
Erika Nicole Cofer, who must respond to the order or file an amended complaint; the named defendants, whose case remains pending unless the court later dismisses it.
What happened
In Erika Nicole Cofer v. Brenda Gayle Martin, et al., Erika Nicole Cofer, representing herself, alleged that the defendants interfered with a state-court custody dispute and hacked her electronic devices. She asserted constitutional claims and claims for perjury and defamation.
The court said Cofer had not shown that the federal court had jurisdiction because her complaint did not adequately allege a claim under the civil-rights statute she relied on. In particular, she did not provide facts showing that the McDaniels defendants were state actors, even though she alleged they were government officials and also alleged they worked for a private company.
Judge Spero ordered Cofer to show why the case should not be dismissed. He allowed her to file either an amended complaint or a response explaining why the current complaint was sufficient by December 10, 2025, and vacated the scheduled case-management conference. The court did not dismiss the case in this order.
The detailed version
- Cofer v. Brenda Gayle Martin · No. 3:25-cv-07239
- Joseph Spero
- Nov. 11, 2025
Background
Erika Nicole Cofer applied to proceed without paying the filing fees, and the court granted that application. The court then screened her complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), which requires screening of complaints filed by people allowed to proceed without paying fees.
The complaint appears to concern a child-custody dispute that was or is pending in state court. Cofer alleged that her mother, the child's father, the McDaniels defendants, SecurityBricks, Inc., Google, and Microsoft participated in efforts to deprive her of custody, interfere with electronic evidence, and hack or track her computer and phone. She asserted claims under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, sought relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and asserted claims for perjury and defamation.
Court's analysis
The court first addressed federal subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning the court's legal authority to hear the case. Cofer relied on federal-question jurisdiction based on § 1983 and the Constitution.
Section 1983 generally permits a claim for constitutional violations against a person who acted under color of state law. The court concluded that Cofer had not alleged facts showing that this state-actor requirement was met. Although she alleged that Adrian and Sarah McDaniels were government officials who acted under color of law, she did not identify any specific government positions they held. The court also noted that her complaint alleged they worked for SecurityBricks, Inc., a private company, as a Cybersecurity Strategic Advisor and a Project Management GRC Analyst.
The court therefore concluded that Cofer had not stated a federal claim under § 1983 and had not established federal jurisdiction. The order did not separately resolve the merits of her factual allegations or enter a final dismissal.
Order
The court ordered Cofer to show cause—meaning to explain—why the case should not be dismissed for lack of federal jurisdiction. It allowed her to respond either by filing an amended complaint addressing the identified deficiencies or by explaining why her current complaint was sufficient. The deadline stated in the order was December 10, 2025. The court vacated the December 3, 2025 case-management conference. The order also stated that any amended complaint must include all facts, claims, and defendants on which Cofer wished to rely rather than incorporating the original complaint by reference.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.