1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 KYLLE ST. PIERRE, Case No. 25-cv-08320-JD

8 Plaintiff,

ORDER RE IFP APPLICATION,

9 v. DISMISSAL, AND ECF FILING

PRIVILEGES

10 CITY OF UKIAH, et al.,

Defendants. 11

12 Pro se plaintiff Kylle St. Pierre has alleged a vast array of claims against defendants City 13 of Ukiah, and Mendocino County and an affiliated commission. The operative amended 14 complaint is over 100 pages long with attachments. Dkt. No. 12. St. Pierre has applied to proceed 15 in forma pauperis (IFP). Dkt. No. 2. He has also filed multiple requests for a temporary 16 restraining order, expedited discovery, and a protective order. See Dkt. Nos. 3, 5, 6, 7, 12-18. The 17 IFP application is denied. The amended complaint is dismissed, and the requests for preliminary 18 relief are terminated as moot. 19 IFP requests are evaluated under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, and the first question is whether the 20 plaintiff's financial status excuses payment of the court’s filing fees. The answer is no. St. Pierre 21 indicated that he is self-employed, and his monthly income exceeds his expenses. Dkt. No. 2. He 22 also has a positive balance in a bank account. Id. In these circumstances, IFP status is not 23 warranted. 24 The next question is whether the complaint is sufficient to stand, and the answer is no. The 25 Court may “at any time” dismiss an IFP complaint that fails to state a claim on which relief may 26 be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The standard is the same as under Federal Rule of Civil 27 Procedure 12(b)(6). Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012). As a pro se plaintiff, 1 must satisfy the requirements of Rule 8 and state facts sufficient to allege a plausible claim. 2 || Nguyen Gardner vy. Chevron Capital Corp., No. 15-cv-01514-JD, 2015 WL 12976114, at *1 (N.D. 3 || Cal. Aug. 27, 2015). 4 Even when read with a generous eye, the amended complaint does not plausibly allege a 5 claim. The amended complaint is an incomprehensible mass of allegations that appear to involve 6 a property parcel in Mendocino County. Much of it consists of anecdotes and asides of no 7 obvious factual or legal import. Overall, the amended complaint did not satisfy the requirement of 8 || providing a short and plain statement showing that St. Pierre might be entitled to relief. See Fed. 9 R. Civ. P. 8(a). 10 Consequently, the complaint is dismissed with leave to amend. St. Pierre may file a 11 second amended complaint by November 3, 2025. This will likely be the final opportunity to state 12 a plausible claim. St. Pierre does not appear to be a lawyer admitted to practice in California or 5 13 this District, and so may not represent any person or entity other than himself. All of the other 14 || motions and requests filed by St. Pierre are terminated without prejudice. See Dkt. Nos. 3, 5, 6, 7, 3 15 12-18. a 16 St. Pierre must follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the District’s Local Rules, and 3 17 || the Court’s standing orders. Motions may be noticed only in conformance with the Court’s civil 18 calendar rules, and all other rules must be followed. 19 With respect to ECF filing privileges, St. Pierre is filing an excessive number of 20 || documents in this case. He may file a second amended complaint only pending further order of 21 the Court. Any other ECF filings by St. Pierre will be summarily stricken from the docket, and the 22 || Court will terminate his ECF filing privileges. 23 A failure to meet the November 3, 2025, filing deadline, or otherwise comply with this 24 order, will result in dismissal of the case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 Dated: October 9, 2025 27 28 JAMES(#ONATO- United Btates District Judge