1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 LASHONDA LYNN CLARK, Case No. 22-cv-03476-JD

8 Plaintiff,

ORDER RE DISMISSAL

v. 9

10 CORPORATION SERVICE COMPANY OBO WELLS FARGO & CO, et al., 11 Defendants.

12 13 Pro se plaintiff Lashonda Clark has sued Wells Fargo and a host of other defendants, and 14 appears to allege that they wrongfully repossessed her vehicle. Dkt. No. 1. Clark was granted 15 leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Dkt. No. 8. 16 The Court may “at any time” dismiss an IFP complaint that fails to state a claim upon 17 which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The standard is the same as under 18 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012). 19 As a pro se plaintiff, Clark gets a liberal construction of her complaint and the benefit of any 20 doubts, but she still must satisfy the requirements of Rule 8 and state facts sufficient to allege a 21 plausible claim. Nguyen Gardner v. Chevron Capital Corp., No. 15-cv-01514-JD, 2015 WL 22 12976114, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 27, 2015). 23 The complaint as it currently stands does not meet these standards. To the limited extent it 24 is intelligible, it says that Clark submitted a “notice of claims and debt validation” to Wells Fargo 25 at some unspecified time, that she received unwanted calls and letters from Wells Fargo in 26 attempts to collect payment, that Wells Fargo and unidentified third parties used “skip tracing 27 methods” to locate her vehicle, and that her vehicle was taken without notification or authorization 1 These allegations do not state a plausible claim for relief. Although not entirely clear, the 2 || complaint appears to assert claims for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act 3 (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. § 1692, and the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), 15 U.S.C. § 1601, and 4 || invasion of privacy. See Dkt. No. 1 at 7. The FDCPA prohibits “debt collector[s]” from “making 5 false or misleading representations and from engaging in various abusive and unfair practices.” 6 Heintz v. Jenkins, 514 U.S. 291, 292 (1995); see also Henderson v. Select Portfolio Servs., Inc., 7 No. 3:15-cv-03028-JD, 2016 WL 1059414, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2016). On the face of the 8 complaint, it is far from clear that any defendant made false or misleading representations to 9 Clark, or engaged in abusive or unfair practices toward her. The complaint says nothing about 10 || predatory lending practices that could support a claim under TILA, and does not describe conduct 11 that could constitute a serious invasion of privacy. See Heeger v. Facebook, Inc., 509 F. Supp. 3d 12 1182, 1193 (N.D. Cal. 2020). 5 13 Consequently, the complaint is dismissed, and all pending motions are terminated. Clark 14 || may file an amended complaint that is consistent with this order by February 1, 2023. Clark may 3 15 not add any new defendants or claims, or make any additional filings in this case without the a 16 || Court’s prior permission. A failure to meet this deadline or otherwise comply with this order will 3 17 result in dismissal with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19 Dated: January 12, 2023 20 21 7 JAMES#ONATO United Ptates District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28