Johnson:Bene
Johnson:Bene v. Wells Fargo of San Leandro
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SEAN-LYONS JOHNSON:BENE, Case No. 22-cv-06782-HSG
Plaintiff, ORDER SCREENING AND
DISMISSING AMENDED COMPLAINT
v. Re: Dkt. No. 28 WELLS FARGO OF SAN LEANDRO, et al., 11 Defendants. 12 On January 22, 2024, Plaintiff, who represents himself, filed under seal a document that appears to be an amended complaint. Dkt. No. 28. Because Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court must screen it for minimal legal viability. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). In doing so now, the Court determines that Plaintiff fails to state a claim, and DISMISSES his complaint with leave to amend, Dkt. No. 28-1, and DENIES the pending motion to seal. Dkt. No. 28. I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff initiated this case on November 11, 2022, when he filed suit against Wells Fargo and four of its employees at a branch in San Leandro for supposedly closing his checking account without notice and, on another occasion, requiring him to provide identifying information that was …