Johnson:Bene v. Wells Fargo of San Leandro

Background

Sean-Lyons Johnson:Bene, who represented himself, originally sued Wells Fargo and four employees at a San Leandro branch. He alleged that Wells Fargo closed his checking account without notice and, on another occasion, required him to provide identifying information that was already in its system. He said this conduct violated federal consumer privacy and protection statutes.

The court had granted Johnson:Bene permission to proceed without paying filing fees. The court therefore had to screen his complaint before directing service. After an earlier screening order gave him permission to amend, and after the court later allowed another amendment because he said he had not received an earlier report, Johnson:Bene filed the amended complaint at issue. He also filed a motion to seal it.

Why the Court Dismissed the Amended Complaint

The court applied the screening standard under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), which requires dismissal if a complaint fails to state a legally sufficient claim. The court applied the same standard used for a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). It also explained that a complaint must provide a short and plain statement of the claim and enough factual matter to make the requested relief plausible.

The court found that the 236-page filing did not meet those requirements. The first ten pages contained numerous statutory references and definitions, discussion of a $300,000,000 bond for the Secretary of the Treasury, general allegations about Wells Fargo’s conduct, and a description of a financial institution Johnson:Bene sought to open. More than 200 pages of exhibits followed, including purported peace declarations, agreements, tax forms, California Secretary of State filings, and other records.

The court said the filing did not clearly and concisely describe Johnson:Bene’s factual allegations or legal claims. It also did not explain how the exhibits related to those allegations. Because the court could not determine the alleged wrongdoing, the legal claims, or the basis for jurisdiction, it concluded that the filing did not provide a complaint to which a defendant could meaningfully respond.

The court therefore DISMISSED the Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim, but permitted Johnson:Bene one final opportunity to amend.

Motion to Seal

The court DENIED the motion to seal the amended complaint and its exhibits in their entirety. It found that Johnson:Bene had not shown the compelling reasons or extraordinary circumstances required to seal an entire pleading. The court directed him to file a version with targeted and appropriate redactions, which could include Social Security numbers, sensitive financial details, and other personal information not reasonably necessary for the public to understand the lawsuit.

Directions for Further Filing

The court ordered Johnson:Bene to file the redacted amended complaint and exhibits by February 16, 2024. It also explained that any second amended complaint must comply with Rule 8 by clearly stating the facts supporting each cause of action and explaining why each defendant was being sued. The court directed him to address deficiencies identified in the earlier screening order, distinguish the complaint from its exhibits, and include only exhibits relied on and referenced in the complaint. The court stated that if he could not present minimally viable pleadings, it would dismiss the complaint with prejudice and close the case; that was a stated possible future action, not the disposition entered in this order.