Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Garred Farrell Norman, who represents himself, sued 14 individuals in their individual and official capacities. They include California Governor Gavin Newsom, Attorney General Rob Bonta, former U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi, former State Bar Executive Director Leah Wilson, and executive directors of several California bar associations. He alleged that the FBI, federal and state officials, and bar association attorneys conspired to keep him and his family from obtaining a lawyer to respond to what he describes as false accusations of murder and attempted murder of his family.
The complaint alleges, among other things, that FBI agents drugged him and tried to entrap and frame him, that an unnamed agent destroyed his marriage and real estate businesses, and that the State Bar has worked with the FBI for roughly 40 years by supplying attorneys to sabotage his cases. It also alleges that agents sold crack cocaine and let a werewolf run free. These are Norman's allegations, and the court made no finding that any of them occurred. He pleaded six claims: Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment due process, Fourteenth Amendment equal protection, conspiracy to interfere with civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1985, fraud, obstruction of justice and conspiracy to obstruct justice, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. He also sought a preliminary injunction and appointment of counsel.
Only Newsom and Bonta, jointly, and Wilson moved to dismiss, each raising several grounds. Norman filed no opposition. He instead submitted other filings, including a witness list and an appeal to the Ninth Circuit. The other defendants did not move.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted Wilson's motion and dismissed the entire complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the substantiality doctrine. It observed that all of the movants' arguments appeared meritorious, particularly because Norman did not oppose them. It focused on the substantiality argument because that doctrine goes to jurisdiction and therefore resolves the complaint as to every defendant, including those who had not responded. Relying on Hagans v. Lavine and Cook v. Peter Kiewit Sons Co., the court explained that federal courts cannot entertain claims so attenuated and unsubstantial as to be devoid of merit, obviously frivolous, or no longer open to discussion.
Citing decisions from this and other districts, the court characterized the complaint as the type of insubstantial and frivolous conspiracy theory claims routinely dismissed under Rule 12(b)(1). It also found that Norman abandoned his chance to clarify his allegations by failing to oppose.
Having found jurisdiction lacking, the court said it had no authority to reach the Rule 12(b)(6) grounds or the request for appointed counsel. It terminated the remaining Newsom and Bonta arguments and the counsel motion as moot. The court did not separately discuss the preliminary injunction request. The dismissal was not final. Citing Lucas v. Department of Corrections and Lopez v. Smith, the court said it could not conclude that amendment would be futile and ordered Norman to file an amended complaint by November 13, 2026. If he does not, the action may be dismissed in its entirety without further leave to amend, and an amended complaint that does not correct the identified deficiencies will be dismissed.
Key Takeaways
- A claim can be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, rather than on the merits, when it is so insubstantial or frivolous that it presents no substantial federal question.
- Because the substantiality doctrine is jurisdictional, a ruling on one defendant's motion can dispose of the whole complaint, including as to defendants who never moved or appeared.
- Once a court finds it lacks jurisdiction, it does not reach the merits grounds for dismissal or a request for appointed counsel, and those motions are terminated as moot.
- Failing to oppose a motion to dismiss can lead a court to treat the opportunity to clarify as abandoned, even for a self-represented plaintiff.
- Dismissal for lack of jurisdiction does not necessarily end the case. A pro se plaintiff may still receive notice of the deficiencies and a chance to amend, as Norman did, but he risks dismissal without further leave if he fails to cure them.
Why It Matters
This is an unreported district court order and carries no precedential weight. It applies settled Ninth Circuit and Supreme Court authority on the substantiality doctrine to a complaint built on alleged government conspiracies. It shows how a court may use Rule 12(b)(1) to end such a case as to all defendants without addressing the merits.
The order also shows the limits of that approach for self-represented parties. The court still gave the plaintiff notice and one opportunity to amend, though the complaint was dismissed on jurisdictional grounds. Whether the case continues depends on whether Norman files an amended complaint by November 13, 2026, and whether it cures the deficiencies the court identified.