Hart v. Hart
- Laurel Beeler
- 5:26-cv-01058
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Eugene Hart v. Eugene Hart, Judge Beeler recommended dismissal after screening and directed reassignment because the complaint lacked jurisdiction and viable claims.
Eugene Hart and the named defendants—Eugene Hart, Duwan Fields, Oneita Hart, and Francis V. Quinntillion—are affected by the recommended dismissal and reassignment of the case.
What happened
In Eugene Hart v. Eugene Hart, the self-represented plaintiff sued Eugene Hart, Duwan Fields, Oneita Hart, and Francis V. Quinntillion over alleged human-rights, privacy, government-benefit, and copyright violations.
The court screened the complaint because the plaintiff was not paying the filing fee. It found no subject-matter jurisdiction and could not determine who allegedly harmed the plaintiff or how. The plaintiff was given until March 9, 2026, to amend but did not do so. The order directs reassignment to a district judge and recommends that the case be dismissed; it is not itself a final dismissal.
Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler also stated that parties may file specific written objections within 14 days after receiving the recommendation. The order warns that failing to object may waive the right to appeal the district court’s order.
The detailed version
- Hart v. Hart · No. 5:26-cv-01058
- Laurel Beeler
- Mar. 13, 2026
Background
Eugene Hart, who is representing himself and proceeding without paying the filing fee, sued Eugene Hart, Duwan Fields, Oneita Hart, and Francis V. Quinntillion. The complaint asserted claims involving alleged human-rights violations, privacy violations, abuse of government benefits, and copyright infringement.
Screening of the Complaint
Because Hart was proceeding without paying the filing fee, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The court had previously issued an order identifying deficiencies and allowing Hart until March 9, 2026, to amend. The opinion says Hart did not amend the complaint.
The court stated that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over Hart’s claims and could not tell from the complaint who had harmed him or how. It concluded that there were no viable claims.
Reassignment and Recommendation
Because not all parties had appeared and consented to a magistrate judge’s jurisdiction, the court directed the Clerk of Court to reassign the case to a district judge. Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler recommended that the newly assigned district judge dismiss the case. The order is a report and recommendation, rather than a statement that the district judge has already entered a final dismissal.
Any party may serve and file specific written objections within 14 days after being served with a copy of the recommendation. The order states that failing to file a written objection within that period may waive the right to appeal the district court’s order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.