Aiyahnna Johnson, et al. v. Alameda County Social Services Agency, et al.
- Thomas Hixson
- 3:26-cv-01920
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 12
In Johnson v. Alameda County Social Services Agency, Magistrate Judge Hixson found the Second Amended Complaint still deficient and ordered plaintiffs to file a third amended complaint by September 14, 2026.
Self-represented plaintiffs who have filed multiple amended complaints alleging data privacy violations, employment interference, wrongful child removal, stalking, and civil rights violations against county social services agencies, a data management company, and private individuals including a named professional athlete and his associates. The ruling is most directly relevant to the plaintiffs, who must file yet another amended complaint by September 14, 2026, and to the defendants named in claims the court found deficiently pled (Nate Miley, Ieasha Larkpor, and East Oakland Collective). The finding of frivolousness as to Kevin Durant, 35 Ventures LLC, and Rich Kleiman is also significant, though the court has not yet dismissed those claims — it has ordered plaintiffs to amend.
What happened
In Johnson v. Alameda County Social Services Agency (Case No. 26-cv-01920-TSH), two self-represented plaintiffs, Aiyahnna Johnson and Kaveri Traylor, have sued multiple defendants — including county social services agencies, a data management company, a professional basketball player, his investment company and business manager, a county supervisor, and others — alleging a years-long conspiracy involving unauthorized access to confidential government records, interference with employment and public benefits, wrongful child removal, stalking, and other harms. This is the court's third screening of the complaint, following earlier rounds in which the court found the pleadings too vague and disorganized to allow defendants to understand what each one is accused of doing.
The court identified two main problems with the current Second Amended Complaint. First, the court found that the claims against the basketball player (Kevin Durant), his investment company (35 Ventures LLC), and his business manager (Rich Kleiman) are legally frivolous — meaning they lack a reasonable basis in fact — because the allegation that a world-famous professional athlete and his associates secretly targeted the plaintiffs over many years crosses from implausible into the kind of fantastical claim that courts are permitted to dismiss outright. Second, several other claims still do not adequately explain how specific defendants are responsible for specific alleged wrongs; for example, claims listing defendant Nate Miley or defendant Ieasha Larkpor fail to describe what those individuals actually did in connection with those claims.
Magistrate Judge Hixson ordered plaintiffs to file a third amended complaint no later than September 14, 2026, curing the identified deficiencies, and warned that failure to do so could result in dismissal of the case. The court noted that because plaintiffs are representing themselves, and because the deficiencies might be fixable, it is giving them another opportunity to amend rather than dismissing the case outright at this stage. The court also directed plaintiffs to resources for self-represented litigants.
The detailed version
- Aiyahnna Johnson, et al. v. Alameda County Social Services Agency, et al. · No. 3:26-cv-01920
- Thomas Hixson
- Aug. 24, 2026
Background
Plaintiffs Aiyahnna Johnson and Kaveri Traylor (Johnson's adult son) are self-represented litigants who were granted permission to proceed without paying filing fees (sometimes called proceeding without prepayment of fees, authorized under 28 U.S.C. § 1915). Under that statute, the court is required to screen the complaint before it is served on defendants and must dismiss it if it is frivolous, fails to state a claim, or seeks money from a defendant who is legally immune.
This is the third such screening. The original complaint was filed March 5, 2026; the court screened it on March 9, 2026, finding it failed to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 (requiring a short and plain statement of each claim) and failed to explain how private defendants could be subject to constitutional claims. A First Amended Complaint was filed March 27, 2026, and screened April 10, 2026, with similar deficiencies noted. The Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") was filed May 7, 2026.
Parties
-
- Aiyahnna Johnson (Oakland, California) and Kaveri Traylor (Oakland, California; Johnson's adult son). -
- Alameda County Social Services Agency (ACSSA); Los Angeles County Department of Public Social Services (LADPSS); Rubrik, Inc. (described as providing cloud data management services and contracting with ACSSA); 35 Ventures LLC (described as the personal investment and management company of Kevin Durant); Kevin Durant (who served on Rubrik's advisory board beginning August 2017); Rich Kleiman (co-CEO of 35 Ventures and Durant's business manager); Nate Miley (Alameda County Supervisor with oversight over ACSSA); East Oakland Collective (an Oakland organization that employed Johnson as a care coordinator from approximately 2021 to May 2025); Candace Elder (Director of East Oakland Collective); and Ieasha Larkpor (Johnson's second cousin, alleged to have a documented business relationship with Durant)
Plaintiffs' Allegations
Plaintiffs allege a coordinated, multi-year scheme (2016–2025) targeting Johnson across several areas:
Data privacy
ACSSA and LADPSS maintained Johnson's social services data in systems managed by Rubrik; Rubrik allegedly failed to implement proper access controls; Durant allegedly obtained unauthorized, non-aggregated access to Johnson's individual records over multiple years. Johnson emailed LADPSS Director Khan Vu on April 26, 2019, identifying Durant and Rubrik as sources of unauthorized access and requesting her file be sealed, but no corrective action followed.
Public benefits interference
Beginning 2018, ACSSA allegedly wrongfully interfered with or denied Johnson's CalFresh (food assistance), TANF (cash assistance), and Medi-Cal (health coverage) benefits, including deactivating her EBT card, failing to process exempt status paperwork, intercepting a $2,500 state tax refund without a hearing, intercepting a $5,000 federal tax refund in 2026, and causing a lapse in Medi-Cal coverage.
Employment interference
Durant, acting through 35 Ventures and with Kleiman's participation, allegedly caused Johnson's wrongful termination from Sky Limo in April 2019 using confidential information from Rubrik. ACSSA and LADPSS allegedly withheld or manipulated Johnson's background check since 2017, resulting in a claimed 100% termination rate across identified employers. In 2025, Johnson was terminated from East Oakland Collective by Director Elder, allegedly in coordination with ACSSA, Miley, and a Durant social media post. Miley allegedly obstructed a CARB grant connected to Johnson's work.
Child welfare
On May 28, 2019, ACSSA and LADPSS allegedly located Johnson's family at a therapy appointment, removed Traylor, and placed him on a six-day involuntary psychiatric hold (a "5150 hold" under California law) without an abuse finding. A social worker closed the investigation as "inconclusive" on July 5, 2019. Reunification occurred around 2022 by court order. Traylor alleges ongoing PTSD from the psychiatric hold and separation.
Coercion and stalking
Durant, 35 Ventures, and Kleiman allegedly obtained Johnson's professional sports consulting services through coercion. Various defendants allegedly stalked and monitored plaintiffs, including through Rubrik data access, and Elder allegedly provided plaintiffs' residential address to other defendants who then orchestrated vehicle theft, mailbox tampering, and a social media post soliciting harm.
Access to courts
ACSSA and Miley allegedly denied Johnson meaningful access to courts by monopolizing local civil rights counsel through government contracts and destroying her income.
Claims Alleged
Plaintiffs bring ten causes of action:
- Breach of Confidentiality and Data Privacy Violations (Johnson v. ACSSA, LADPSS, Rubrik)
- Wrongful Termination (Johnson v. 35 Ventures, Durant, Kleiman, Miley, Elder, East Oakland Collective)
- Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage (Johnson v. ACSSA, LADPSS, 35 Ventures, Durant, Kleiman, Miley, Elder)
- Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (Johnson and Traylor v. all Defendants except Rubrik)
- Civil Conspiracy (Johnson and Traylor v. all Defendants)
- Deprivation of Civil Rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Johnson and Traylor v. ACSSA, LADPSS, Rubrik)
- Negligence (Johnson and Traylor v. all Defendants)
- Human Trafficking under California Civil Code § 52.5 (Johnson v. 35 Ventures, Durant, Kleiman)
- Stalking under California Civil Code § 1708.7 (Johnson and Traylor v. all Defendants)
- Denial of Access to Courts under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Johnson v. ACSSA, Miley)
Plaintiffs seek emergency injunctive relief, compensatory damages, punitive damages of $50,000,000, and statutory treble damages.
Court's Analysis
Frivolousness Standard
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), a court may dismiss a complaint that is frivolous — meaning it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact, including claims based on "fantastic or delusional scenarios." The court has the authority to look past the surface of the allegations and is not required to accept as true allegations that are irrational or wholly incredible.
Frivolousness Finding as to Durant, 35 Ventures, and Kleiman
The court found the allegations against Kevin Durant, 35 Ventures, and Rich Kleiman to be frivolous. The court acknowledged plaintiffs may sincerely believe their allegations, but concluded the idea that a world-famous professional basketball player, his investment vehicle, and his business manager were targeting plaintiffs over a seven-year period — secretly accessing government records, interfering with employment, coercing consulting services, stalking, and conspiring with county agencies — "fall[s] further out on the spectrum past implausible and toward the delusional." The court cited comparable cases in which courts dismissed complaints alleging that individual defendants were super-spies or assassins, or that government actors were coordinating to surveil and harass the plaintiff.
Rule 8 Deficiencies
The court found plaintiffs had cured some earlier deficiencies: the SAC specifies which plaintiff brings each claim and includes specific allegations for each cause of action. However, the court found two remaining Rule 8 problems:
1. Claims 4 and 9 against Miley; Claim 9 against Larkpor: Miley is listed as a defendant in Claims 4 (Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress) and 9 (Stalking), but the specific allegations in those claims do not mention him. Similarly, Larkpor is listed as a defendant in Claim 9 but is not described in the claim's allegations. Plaintiffs must explain specifically what each of these defendants did to support liability.
2. Claim 9 against East Oakland Collective: Claim 9 lists East Oakland Collective as a defendant, and Elder is also listed, but plaintiffs do not explain how Elder was acting on behalf of East Oakland Collective for this claim. Plaintiffs must explain the basis for the organization's liability.
Disposition
The court did not dismiss the case. Instead, finding that the complaint's deficiencies might be curable by amendment and recognizing plaintiffs' self-represented status, the court ordered plaintiffs to file a third amended complaint by September 14, 2026. The court warned that failure to cure the identified deficiencies could lead to dismissal. The court also provided detailed formatting and structural instructions for the amended complaint and directed plaintiffs to free legal assistance resources, including the Federal Pro Bono Project.
Read the full 12-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.