1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ELISABETH THIERIOT, Case No. 25-cv-07816-JD

8 Plaintiff,

ORDER RE IFP APPLICATION,

9 v. TEMPORARY RESTRAINING

ORDERS, PRELIMINARY

10 ANDREW SWEET, et al., INJUNCTIONS, AND DISMISSAL 11 Defendants.

12 13 Pro se plaintiff Elisabeth Thieriot has applied to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). 14 Dkt. No. 3. “IFP requests are evaluated under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, and the first question is whether 15 the plaintiff’s financial status excuses payment of the court’s filing fees.” Nordin v. Scott, No. 16 3:21-cv-04717-JD, 2021 WL 4710697, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 8, 2021), aff’d, No. 22-15816, 2023 17 WL 4418595 (9th Cir. July 10, 2023). The answer here is yes. Thieriot states that she is 18 unemployed, has only $20 to her name, and has no monthly income. Dkt. No. 3 at 1-3. 19 The next question is whether the complaint is sufficient to stand, and the answer is no. See 20 Dkt. No. 1. “The Court may ‘at any time’ dismiss an IFP complaint that fails to state a claim on 21 which relief may be granted.” Nordin, 2021 WL 4710697, at *1 (quoting 28 U.S.C. 22 § 1915(e)(2)(B)). “The standard is the same as under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).” 23 Id. (citing Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012)). As a pro se plaintiff, Thieriot 24 gets a liberal construction of her complaint and the benefit of any doubts, but she still must satisfy 25 the requirements of Rule 8 and state facts sufficient to allege a plausible claim. Id. (citing Nguyen 26 Gardner v. Chevron Capital Corp., No. 15-cv-01514-JD, 2015 WL 12976114 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 27, 27 2015)). 1 Even when read with a generous eye, the complaint does not present a plausible claim for 2 || relief. See Dkt. No. 1. It is more than 1,000 pages of rambling and disjointed statements that are 3 || difficult to follow, and are often incoherent. See id. A significant portion of it appears to concern 4 || California state court proceedings, although this too was not clearly alleged. See id. 5 Overall, the complaint falls well below the requirement of a short and plain statement of a 6 || claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. In addition, to the extent Thieriot is challenging 7 state court proceedings, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. See Herships v. California 8 || Superior Ct., No. 3:20-cv-07208-JD, 2024 WL 4197637, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 13, 2024). 9 Consequently, the complaint is dismissed. The Court sees no realistic likelihood that 10 amending the complaint will result in a plausible claim, and so the case is dismissed without 11 prejudice. The applications for temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions, Dkt. 12 || Nos. 5, 7, 8, are denied as moot. No further filings will be accepted. 5 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 Dated: October 7, 2025

16

JAMESPONATO

17 United Btates District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28