Le v. President of the United States
- Jon Tigar
- 4:22-cv-04375
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 6
In Le v. President of the United States, Judge Beeler screened the complaint, allowed amendment, and denied default judgment.
Helen Le, who may amend the complaint by October 12, 2022, or voluntarily dismiss the case without prejudice; the defendants were not served, and the court denied Le's motion for default judgment.
What happened
Helen Le sued the President of the United States, the Speaker of the House, and others, apparently seeking money based on an earlier lawsuit. She represented herself and had permission to proceed without paying filing fees.
The court found that the complaint did not plausibly state a federal claim and had not been served on the defendants. It allowed Le to amend by October 12, 2022, or voluntarily dismiss the case without prejudice, and denied her motion for default judgment because the defendants had not been served.
Judge Laurel Beeler issued the order. If Le did neither by the deadline, the court said it would reassign the case to a district judge and recommend dismissal.
The detailed version
- Le v. President of the United States · No. 4:22-cv-04375
- Jon Tigar
- Sept. 21, 2022
Background
Helen Le sued the President of the United States, the Speaker of the House, and other defendants. She represented herself and was proceeding without paying filing fees. The complaint appeared to seek monetary compensation based on her assertion that defendants in a prior related proceeding had defaulted. The court stated that the defendants in that earlier proceeding had not defaulted.
The complaint also included allegations about being denied a hearing before Congress, defendants blocking her voice and face, insurance companies not providing a car for a hospital visit, and her having been killed on March 18, 2022. In a separate motion for default judgment, Le asserted that she had been wrongfully jailed and that federal employment had harmed her hopes and efforts for her son.
Screening analysis
Because Le was proceeding without paying filing fees, the court was required to screen the complaint before directing the United States Marshal to serve it. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the court had to dismiss claims that were frivolous, failed to state a claim, or sought money from a defendant immune from such relief. The court concluded that the allegations did not plead a plausible federal claim.
The court nevertheless gave Le an opportunity to amend. It directed her to describe what happened to her, including the nature of the alleged imprisonment and federal employment, and to provide a short and plain statement explaining why she was entitled to relief. The court stated that Le was not owed money based on the prior related proceeding because its defendants had not defaulted.
Rulings and next steps
The court denied Le’s motion for default judgment because the defendants had not yet been served. It did not order the present complaint dismissed at that time. Instead, it allowed Le to file an amended complaint by October 12, 2022. Alternatively, she could file a one-page notice of voluntary dismissal by that date, which would operate as a dismissal without prejudice. If she did neither, the court said it would reassign the case to a district judge and recommend that the newly assigned judge dismiss the case.
The order was issued by Laurel Beeler, United States Magistrate Judge.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.