Dunlap v. Bay Area Rapid Transit

Background

Jevarien Z. Dunlap filed the complaint without a lawyer and was allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee. The complaint names Bay Area Rapid Transit, Northern California, Oakland, California, and San Francisco, California as defendants. It asserts a claim under the federal False Claims Act and alleges: “I was aware that BART opened and started functions at 5 am due to a poster in Millbrae but instead they opened at 7 am.” Dunlap seeks a “reward” of $160,000.

Screening and legal standards

Because Dunlap was allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee, the court was required to screen the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). That law requires dismissal of claims that are frivolous or malicious, fail to state a claim for relief, or seek money from a defendant protected from such relief. The court also applied the standard for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which asks whether the complaint alleges enough facts to present a plausible legal claim. The court stated that allegations from a person representing himself must be read liberally, and that such a person generally must be given an opportunity to amend after being told what is deficient.

False Claims Act analysis

The False Claims Act allows a private person, called a relator, to sue on the government’s behalf for certain fraudulent claims involving government money. The court identified the required elements as a false statement or fraudulent conduct, made knowingly, that was important to the government’s payment or loss of money.

The court concluded that Dunlap’s allegation did not state a False Claims Act claim because it did not allege that anyone knowingly made a false statement, acted with the required intent, or made a statement material to a payment of government money. The court also stated that a person representing himself cannot prosecute a False Claims Act case on behalf of the United States. It found that no other viable claim was apparent from the complaint.

Order

Judge Joseph C. Spero ordered Dunlap to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for failure to state a viable claim. The order did not itself dismiss the case. Dunlap may either file an amended complaint addressing the identified deficiencies or file a response explaining why the existing complaint is sufficient. The deadline is December 10, 2025. If he does not respond by then, the case will be reassigned to a United States district judge with a recommendation that it be partially dismissed under § 1915(e)(2)(B). The court also vacated the January 7, 2026 Case Management Conference.