{"id":422,"date":"2026-01-22T12:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-01-22T12:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=422"},"modified":"2026-01-22T12:00:00","modified_gmt":"2026-01-22T12:00:00","slug":"gu-jimenez-1915-screening-rico-due-process-conclusory","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=422","title":{"rendered":"Gu v. Jimenez \u2014 S.D. Cal. Dismisses Five-Sentence RICO and Due-Process Complaint at Section 1915 Screening Stage"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
Case<\/dt>\n
Gu v. Jimenez<\/dd>\n
Court<\/dt>\n
U.S. District Court \u2014 Southern District of California<\/dd>\n
Date Decided<\/dt>\n
2026-01-22<\/dd>\n
Docket No.<\/dt>\n
3:25-cv-02326<\/dd>\n
Status<\/dt>\n
Unreported \/ Non-Citable<\/dd>\n
Topics<\/dt>\n
In forma pauperis, 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1915(e)(2)(B) screening, RICO pleading, due process, Iqbal\/Twombly plausibility, venue<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<\/div>\n

Background<\/h2>\n

Fayee Gu filed a one-page, five-sentence pro se complaint in the Southern District of California against Sergio Jimenez. The complaint alleged that her landlord, Re\/Max, was the current owner of her apartment; that another individual, Hong Yi Zeng, conspired with a Re\/Max agent to fabricate a criminal charge against her; and that defendant Jimenez conspired with Zeng in violating her due process rights. She invoked the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”) as the basis for federal jurisdiction and demanded $1 billion in damages. She also moved to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) so she would not have to pay the filing fee.<\/p>\n

The Court’s Holding<\/h2>\n

The court granted the IFP motion and dismissed the complaint with leave to amend.<\/p>\n

On the IFP request, the court found Gu had adequately shown indigence: monthly household income of $2,000, monthly expenses of $2,150, only $40 in a checking account, and a $143,015 court judgment against her. Under Escobedo v. Applebees<\/em> and Adkins v. DuPont<\/em>, an IFP applicant need not be completely destitute but must show inability to pay court costs and still afford the necessities of life. Gu satisfied that standard.<\/p>\n

On the screening question under 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1915(e)(2)(B), the court was required to evaluate whether the complaint stated a claim under the same standard used for Federal Rule 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss \u2014 the Iqbal\/Twombly<\/em> plausibility standard. Although pro se pleadings are construed liberally, the court cannot supply essential elements of claims that were not initially pled. Gu’s five-sentence complaint did not approach the required level of factual detail. It mentioned RICO and a conspiracy but provided no allegations explaining what predicate acts were committed, how the defendant participated, or how the conduct violated any statute. The same was true for the due-process claim \u2014 there were no facts about the alleged process due, what the defendant did, or how the defendant deprived her of any protected interest.<\/p>\n

The court also flagged serious concerns about venue. Federal venue rules generally require the suit to be brought where the defendant resides, where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred, or where property at issue is located. The complaint did not establish any of these as to the Southern District of California.<\/p>\n

Key Takeaways<\/h2>\n