Johnson v. Performant Recovery Inc.

I. BACKGROUND

17 On September 16, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Complaint, Dkt. 1, along with an 18 application to proceed IFP, Dkt. 2. The Complaint alleges: 19 Defendants have repeatedly called & mailed threatening letters to Plaintiff 20 concerning an alleged debt. Defendants have no jurisdiction to threaten & garnish Plaintiff’s wages. Plaintiff Due Process Rights are being violated & Defendants have failed to disclose reasons for actions taken by Defendants. Defendants have breached consumer affairs rules & conduct. Plaintiff is being discriminated against & are in continuance of collection agency fraud. 23 Dkt. 1 at 2. No additional substantive allegations are made. Id. Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff brings “Original Proceedings of discriminations [sic], due process violations, collection agency fraud, fair debt collection violations, civil rights violations,” and requests as relief “$100 Billion Dollars for Punitive Damages, $100 Million Dollars for Future Punitive Damages; Judicial Sanctions, All Relief Deemed Just & Proper by Courts.” Id. On September 25, 2019, Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim—to whom the action was then 2 …