govinfo:USCOURTS-cand-5_26-cv-05205-1

1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
United States District Court 
Northern District of California 
 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 
SAN JOSE DIVISION 
 
CHRISTOPHER SHINTARO MUTA, 
Plaintiff, 
v. 
 
COURT-APPOINTED, 
Defendant. 
 

 
 
ORDER SCREENING FIRST 
AMENDED COMPLAINT; 
DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED 
COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO 
AMEND; AND TERMINATING 
MOTION/PETITION 
[Re: ECF Nos. 6, 7] 
 
In this matter, the Court previously granted Plaintiff Christopher Shintaro Muta’s 
application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) and screened and dismissed the complaint with 
leave to amend. ECF No. 5. The Court explained that it was “unable to discern from the 
complaint who the defendants are or what they are alleged to have done” because the “facts 
support no plausible claim.” Id. at 2. The Court explained that to proceed, Plaintiff must amend 
the complaint to (1) clearly identify the defendants; (2) state facts to tell a story that support the 
claim; and (3) explain why he is entitled to relief under the law. Id. 
Plaintiff has now submitted a first amended complaint, ECF No. 6 (“FAC”), and a motion 
styled as a “Motion/Petition” for “Writ of Certiorari,” “Writ of Mandamus,” and “Writ of Error 
Coram Nobis,” ECF No. 7. For the reasons set forth below, the FAC is DISMISSED WITH 
LEAVE TO AMEND and the Motion/Petition is TERMINATED. 
I. LEGAL STANDARD 
When a district court grants IFP status, it must screen the complaint and dismiss the action 
if it “is frivolous or malicious,” “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted,” or “seeks 
monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). If 
the complaint survives the initial screening, the court must “order that service be made by a United 

 
2 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
United States District Court 
Northern District of California 
States marshal or deputy marshal or by a person specially appointed by the court.” Fed. R. Civ. 
P. 4(c)(3). The Court will screen Plaintiff’s complaint and order service only if the Court 
determines that the complaint survives initial screening. 
The IFP statute accords district judges “not only the authority to dismiss a claim based on 
an indisputably meritless legal theory, but also the unusual power to pierce the veil of the 
complaint’s factual allegations and dismiss those claims whose factual contentions are clearly 
baseless.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32 (1992) (quoting Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 
319, 327 (1989)). “Examples of the latter class are claims describing fantastic or delusional 
scenarios, claims with which federal district judges are all too familiar.” Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 328. 
A complaint that does not state enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face is 
deficient. See Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). 
II. DISCUSSION 
The FAC is a 27-page compilation of unintelligible documents. For example, the FAC 
recites a battery of constitutional violations and remedies but does not indicate which Plaintiff 
believes are applicable. FAC at 2–15. He includes an excerpt from the International Law Studies 
Annotated Supplement to the Commander’s Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations. FAC 
at 17–18. Parts of the submission devolve into gibberish, and several lines of text are written 
diagonally or sideways, such that they cannot reasonably be read. See, e.g., FAC at 19–27. 
In sum, despite clear guidance from the Court, Plaintiff has not written a coherent factual 
narrative explaining who the defendants are, what they are alleged to have done, and why he is 
entitled to relief under the law. Accordingly, the FAC is subject to dismissal. Mindful of its 
obligation to construe pro se pleadings liberally, Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1235 
(9th Cir. 1984), the Court will give Plaintiff a second opportunity to amend. Plaintiff is advised to 
submit a straightforward narrative of the facts, state clearly what law applies, and explain why he 
is entitled to relief under that law. 
Plaintiff’s Motion/Petition suffers from the same defects as the FAC. In its current form, 
the submission is an unsorted, 45-page corpus of materials and does not constitute a coherent 
filing that the Court can meaningfully address. See ECF No. 7. Accordingly, the Motion/Petition 

 
3 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
United States District Court 
Northern District of California 
is terminated. 
III. ORDER 
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 
(1) Plaintiff’s first amended complaint is DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. 
(2) Plaintiff SHALL file a second amended complaint within 30 days of the date of this 
Order, on or before July 20, 2026. 
(3) No new claims or parties may be added without express leave of the Court. 
Amendment shall be limited to remedying the deficiencies identified in this Order. 
(4) Plaintiff’s Motion/Petition, ECF No. 7, is TERMINATED. 
Dated: June 18, 2026 
 ______________________________________ 
BETH LABSON FREEMAN 
United States District Judge 

Passage view · GavelSight