1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 YVONNE YA-WEN FENG, Case No. 25-cv-06598-JST

8 Plaintiff,

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR

9 v. LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS AND SCREENING AND

10 ALTA BATES SUMMIT MEDICAL DISMISSING COMPLAINT CENTER, et al., 11 Re: ECF No. 3 Defendants.

12 13 Before the Court is Plaintiff Yvonne Ya-Wen Feng’s motion for leave to proceed in forma 14 pauperis. ECF No. 3. The Court will grant the motion to proceed in forma pauperis but dismiss 15 the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) for failure to state a claim. 16 I. GRANTING LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 17 The Court may authorize the commencement of a civil action in forma pauperis if it is 18 satisfied that the would-be litigant cannot pay the filing fees necessary to pursue the action. 28 19 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). Having reviewed Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 20 2, the Court finds that Plaintiff is unable to pay the full amount of fees and costs or give security. 21 Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 2015) (“An affidavit in support of an IFP 22 application is sufficient where it alleges that the affiant cannot pay the court costs and still afford 23 the necessities of life.”). The Court therefore grants Plaintiff's request to proceed in forma 24 pauperis. 25 II. SCREENING OPERATIVE COMPLAINT 26 A. Standard of Review 27 Section 1915(e)(2) requires the Court to screen in forma pauperis proceedings to 1 granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. 2 § 1915(e)(2). The standard for determining whether a plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon 3 which relief can be granted under Section 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is the same as the Federal Rule of 4 Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) standard for failure to state a claim. Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 5 1112 (9th Cir. 2012) (citing Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127–31 (9th Cir. 2000)). If the Court 6 determines that the action “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted,” it must dismiss 7 the case. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii); see also Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th 8 Cir. 1998). 9 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that 10 the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). “Specific facts are not necessary; the 11 statement need only give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon 12 which it rests.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (internal quotations and citation 13 omitted). While Rule 8 does not require detailed factual allegations, it “demands more than an 14 unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 15 677–78 (2009). A pleading that offers only labels and conclusions, or a formulaic recitation of the 16 elements of a cause of action, or naked assertions devoid of further factual enhancement does not 17 suffice. Id. Likewise, if a plaintiff lacks Article III standing to bring a suit, the federal court lacks 18 subject-matter jurisdiction and the suit must be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(1). Cetacean Cmty. v. 19 Bush, 386 F.3d 1169, 1174 (9th Cir. 2004). 20 For the purpose of screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court “accept[s] all factual 21 allegations in the complaint as true and construe[s] the pleadings in the light most favorable to the 22 nonmoving party.” Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005). 23 B. Discussion 24 Under the substantiality doctrine, “federal courts are without power to entertain claims 25 otherwise within their jurisdiction if they are so attenuated and unsubstantial as to be absolutely 26 devoid of merit, wholly unsubstantial, obviously frivolous, plainly unsubstantial, or no longer 27 open to discussion.” Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 536–37 (1974) (internal quotations and 1 of this Court or otherwise completely devoid of merit as not to involve a federal controversy 2 within the jurisdiction of the District Court.” Smith-Bey v. Hamlin, No. 23-55788, 2025 WL 3 671115, at *1 (9th Cir. Mar. 3, 2025) (internal quotations and citation omitted). “Claims that are 4 too insubstantial to give rise to subject matter jurisdiction include those alleging bizarre or wholly 5 implausibly conspiracy theories.” Ou-Young v. Rudy, No. 21-cv-07361-BLF, 2022 WL 2343043, 6 at *3 (N.D. Cal. June 29, 2022). “District courts in this and other circuits dismiss cases with 7 prejudice when they . . . involve claims regarding implausible government conspiracies, alleged 8 government control or mental interference, and alleged planting of microchips.” Foster v. Carter, 9 No. 3:16-cv-02336-LB, 2016 WL 7852472, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 1, 2016) (collecting cases). 10 The substantiality doctrine forecloses the claims in this case. Feng alleges that she is “a 11 victim of malicious persecution by corrupted FBIs and Pharmaceutical companies who alleged 12 Plaintiff with mental illness and delusional to against or discredit her Invention” of a “non- 13 invasive therapy saving lives.” ECF No. 1 ¶ 1. She alleges “FBI mobs” are “stalking, hacking, 14 defaming and attacking every[where] plaintiff goes and everyday 24/7 surveillances over 12 years 15 and many countries.” Id. On August 26, 2024, Feng felt sick “after [she] ate poisoned foods.” Id. 16 ¶ 2. She went to the emergency room at Alta Bates Summit Medical Center, and she alleges that 17 she was mistreated there at “the direction of FBI malicious prosecution,” and that the medical staff 18 were in a “[k]nowingly joint and willful conspir[acy] with FBI [and] refused to treat me.” Id. ¶ 4. 19 She alleges the Medical Center wrongly placed her under a “5150 involuntary hold” for having 20 “delusions of persecutions by FBI.” Id. ¶ 5. And she alleges FBI provided her medical staff “a 21 large dose or mixed different Toxic Chemicals intent to kill me instantly or quickly” and that she 22 was injected with these chemicals. Id. ¶ 7. She asserts 20 claims and requests over $2 million in 23 damages. Id. at 24–34. 24 Courts have applied the substantiality doctrine to bar similar allegations in the past. Zeiny 25 v. United States, No. 17-cv-07023, 2018 WL 1367389, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 16, 2018) (“One 26 common theme in [substantiality doctrine] cases is alleged harassment by the intelligence 27 services.”); Caruso v. United States, No. 2:16-cv-2902-TLN-KJN PS, 2017 WL 1426998, at *2 1 conspiracy involving attorneys, pharmaceutical companies, and faculty from various academic 2 |} institutions” too insubstantial to give rise to federal jurisdiction); Zeiny v. United States, No. 5:13- 3 cv-01220 EJD, 2014 WL 1051341, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2014) (applying substantiality 4 || doctrine to dismiss claims alleging “a conspiracy of clandestine CIA control over Plaintiff's travel, 5 || religious practice, medical care, and employment”); Ticktin v. Cent. Intel. Agency, No. CV 08- 6 || 998-PHX-MHM, 2009 WL 976517, at *4 (D. Ariz. Apr. 9, 2009) (applying substantiality doctrine 7 to dismiss claims that the CIA and/or FBI “target[ed] [plaintiff] for harassment and threats, 8 || interfered with his employment, attempted to run him off the road, intended on a separate occasion 9 || to kill him, and are currently tapping his phone lines and monitoring his email”); Popovic v. 10 || Grabar-Kitarovic, No. 18-cv-03503 NC, 2018 WL 3439433, at *2—3 (N.D. Cal. July 17, 2018) 11 (applying substantiality doctrine to dismiss claims that Croatian defense operatives were “heavily 12 || attack[ing] [plaintiff] with directed energy weapon” and inflicting “nightly torture episodes” on 13 her). 14 Taking its guidance from these authorities, the Court finds that Feng’s claims are too 3 15 insubstantial to give rise to subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss the a 16 || complaint. Notwithstanding the liberal policy favoring leave to amend for pro se plaintiffs, see 3 17 Lucas v. Dep’t of Corr., 66 F.3d 245, 248 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam), the Court finds that 18 amendment would be futile and thus will not grant leave to amend. 19 CONCLUSION 20 For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants Feng’s application to proceed in forma 21 || pauperis and, upon screening, dismisses the complaint with prejudice. The Clerk shall close the 22 || file. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 Dated: October 10, 2025 . 2° JON S. TIGA 6 United States District Judge 27 28