Ronald Satish Smith v. Bill Gates, et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Andrew G. Schopler (author)
Analysis
The court granted the plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) and dismissed the complaint without prejudice for lack of Article III standing, granting leave to amend.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (IFP) Granted“Smith’s IFP request is GRANTED” | agree with court The court found that the plaintiff had no assets and his disability payments barely covered expenses, satisfying the requirement that a party need not be completely destitute to proceed IFP. This follows the standard set in Blount v. Saul and 28 U.S.C. § 1915. |
Complaint Dismissed Without Prejudice“his complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice and with leave to amend” | agree with court The court applied the screening requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and found the complaint failed to state a claim due to lack of Article III standing. The plaintiff alleged general industrial espionage and mind-reading by defendants but failed to allege that he personally owned, consumed, or was the subject of the alleged misconduct, thus failing to show a concrete and particularized injury in fact as required by Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly applies the IFP standard by citing relevant case law and statutory provisions. It correctly applies the Article III standing requirement from Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife to the specific allegations in the complaint, noting the lack of personal injury or connection to the defendants' alleged actions. The dismissal without prejudice and leave to amend is appropriate for a standing deficiency that might be cured by better pleading.
Opinion
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 Ronald Satish SMITH, Case No.: 25-cv-3641-AGS-AHG 4 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING IFP MOTION 5 v. (ECF 2) AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT 6 Bill GATES, et al., 7 Defendants.
8 Plaintiff Ronald Smith moves to proceed without paying the usual $405 in court 9 fees. See Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999) (“An action may proceed 10 despite failure to pay the filing fees only if the party is granted IFP [in forma pauperis] 11 status.”); 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) (“filing fee of $350”); Judicial Conference Schedule of Fees, 12 District Court Misc. Fee Schedule, § 14 (eff. Dec. 1, 2023) (“Administrative fee” of “$55”). 13 Smith has no assets, and his disability payments hardly exceed his expenses (see ECF 2), 14 so he need not pay the filing fees. See Blount v. Saul, No. 21-CV-0679-BLM, 2021 WL 15 1561453, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 21, 2021) (“[A] party need not be completely destitute to 16 proceed IFP.”). 17 Next, the Court must screen the complaint and dismiss it if it is “frivolous” or “fails 18 to state a claim.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Smith seeks “500 billion dollars” from—and 19 “an injunction and/or declaratory judgment” against—the defendant corporations and 20 corporate leaders, “The Mythical Bavarian Illuminati as Urban Legend,” Pope Leo XIV, 21 and others. But he does not have Article III standing to sue. To have standing, a plaintiff 22 “must have suffered” a “concrete and particularized” “injury in fact.” Lujan v. Defenders 23 of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992). Smith alleges that defendants “have committed 24 industrial espionage” and both “read the minds of” and “spy on” consumers. (ECF 1, at 25 8–9.) But he does not allege that he owns or has consumed any of defendants’ products or 26 that he has otherwise been the alleged misbehavior’s subject. So, he lacks standing. 27 Smith’s IFP request is GRANTED, and his complaint is DISMISSED without 28 1 || prejudice and with leave to amend. Any amended complaint is due February 27, 2026. 2 Dated: January 27, 2026 4 Hon. Andrew G. Schopler 5 United States District Judge 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28