Logan v. Pro
- Sallie Kim
- 4:26-cv-06861
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Erick L. Logan v. Storage Pro, Judge Tiga denied the fee-waiver application and dismissed the case with prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Erick L. Logan’s case against Storage Pro was dismissed with prejudice, and his application to proceed without prepaying filing fees was denied.
What happened
Erick L. Logan sued Storage Pro after a manager allegedly prevented him from entering two rented storage units. Logan filed the complaint without a lawyer and asked to proceed without paying filing fees, stating that he owned about $1 billion in cash.
The court denied that fee-waiver application because Logan’s statement showed he could pay the fees. The court also dismissed the case with prejudice because the complaint did not present a plausible federal claim or otherwise establish federal jurisdiction. The court found that changing the complaint would be futile and noted that Logan had previously brought a related case and had been warned several times about the jurisdictional problem.
Judge Tiga ordered the Clerk to enter judgment and close the file.
The detailed version
- Logan v. Pro · No. 4:26-cv-06861
- Sallie Kim
- Aug. 27, 2026
Background
Erick L. Logan filed a complaint against Storage Pro and applied to proceed without prepaying court fees. Logan was representing himself. In his financial affidavit, he stated that he owned “about 1 billion” in cash.
Logan alleged that a Storage Pro manager prevented him from entering rental storage units numbered 1915 and 2041. He described the dispute as involving a right to occupy rented space and an “unlawful lockout / said selling of property.” The court said the complaint was essentially the same as Logan’s complaint in a related earlier case, in which he alleged that he could not access storage units numbered 1915 and 2140 or 2141. The court had dismissed that earlier case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because Logan had not alleged a federal claim or satisfied the requirements for diversity jurisdiction.
Court’s Analysis
The court denied Logan’s application to proceed without prepaying fees because his statement that he owned about $1 billion in cash showed that he could pay the required fees or security.
The court separately examined its subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning its legal authority to hear the case. It concluded that the complaint failed for lack of federal-question jurisdiction because Logan’s allegations about being locked out of storage units did not show a plausible federal claim. The court also noted that the complaint did not precisely state when Logan was denied access or how long the denial lasted.
The court concluded that amendment would be futile, meaning that changing the complaint would not cure the jurisdictional defect. It dismissed the case with prejudice. The court also stated that this was Logan’s third attempt to address the alleged harm and that it had previously advised him four times about the jurisdictional deficiency.
Disposition
The application to proceed without prepaying fees was denied. The case was dismissed with prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The Clerk was ordered to enter judgment and close the file. Judge Jon S. Tiga signed the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.