Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00613/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00613-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PAMELA STICKLER,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 12-CV-613 - IEG (KSC)

ORDER:

(1) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO PROCEED IN

FORMA PAUPERIS; 

[Doc. No. 2]

(2) SUA SPONTE DISMISSING

COMPLAINT; AND

[Doc. No. 1]

(3) DENYING WITHOUT

PREJUDICE AS MOOT MOTION

FOR A TEMPORARY

RESTRAINING ORDER AND

MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT

OF COUNSEL

[Doc. Nos. 1, 3]

vs.

MISTY PROAK,

Defendant.

Plaintiff Pamela Stickler (“Plaintiff”) commenced this action on March 9, 2012 against

Defendant Misty Proak (“Defendant”). [Doc. No. 1, Compl.] Along with her complaint, Plaintiff

submitted a motion to proceed in forma pauperis and a motion for the appointment of counsel. 

[Doc. Nos. 2-3.] Having considered Plaintiff’s submissions, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff leave to

proceed in forma pauperis, DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s complaint, and

DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel and Plaintiff’s motion for a

- 1 - 12cv613

Case 3:12-cv-00613-IEG-KSC Document 4 Filed 03/22/12 Page 1 of 4
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

temporary restraining order.

DISCUSSION

I. MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

All parties instituting any civil action, suit, or proceeding in a district court, except an

application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of $350. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a).

However, an action may proceed despite failure to pay the filing fee if the party is granted an in

forma pauperis (“IFP”) status. See Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). The

Court may grant IFP status to any party who demonstrates that he or she is unable to pay such fees

or give security therefor. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

In the present case, having reviewed Plaintiff’s motion and declaration in support of the

motion, the Court finds that Plaintiff has made a sufficient showing of inability to pay the required

filing fees. See Rodriguez, 169 F.3d at 1177. Accordingly, good cause appearing, the Court

GRANTS Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

II. INITIAL SCREENING PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)

After granting IFP status, the Court must dismiss the case if the complaint “fails to state a

claim on which relief may be granted” or is “frivolous.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see also Lopez

v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (noting that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) “not

only permits but requires” the court to sua sponte dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint that fails

to state a claim). In order to properly state a claim for relief, “a complaint must contain sufficient

factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v.

Iqbal,–U.S.–, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). A complaint must contain more than a “labels and

conclusions” or a “formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action;” it must contain factual

allegations sufficient to “raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v.

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). “‘The pleading must contain something more . . . than . . . a

statement of facts that merely creates a suspicion [of] a legally cognizable right of action.’” Id.

A complaint is frivolous “where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke

v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989) (superseded on other grounds as stated in Lopez v. Smith,

203 F.3d 1122, 1126 (9th Cir. 2000)). Where a complaint fails to state “any constitutional or

- 2 - 12cv613

Case 3:12-cv-00613-IEG-KSC Document 4 Filed 03/22/12 Page 2 of 4
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

statutory right that was violated, nor asserts any basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction,” there

is no “arguable basis in law” under Neitzke, and the court on its own initiative may decline to

permit the plaintiff to proceed and dismiss the complaint under Section 1915. Cato v. United

States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995).

As currently pleaded, Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a cognizable claim and is frivolous

to the extent it lacks an arguable basis in law. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant told a pastor that he

did not have to give Plaintiff financial help when she requested help from a Lutheran Church. 

[Compl. at 2.] Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant might have called the police when Plaintiff was

attending a church in old town San Diego. [Id.] These allegations fail to identify any constitutional

or statutory right that Defendant violated, and they fail to provide any facts that could establish a

cause of action against Defendant. In addition, Plaintiff fails to assert any basis for federal subject

matter jurisdiction.

Even affording Plaintiff’s complaint the special consideration given to pro se claimants, her

allegations fail to present a cognizable legal theory or facts sufficient to support a cognizable legal

theory against Defendant. Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Plaintiff’s complaint as frivolous and for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

III. MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

In addition to her complaint, Plaintiff has filed a motion for appointment of counsel. [Doc.

No. 3.] Plaintiff’s complaint also appears to be requesting a temporary restraining order (“TRO”)

against Defendant. [Compl. at 2.] Because the Court dismisses Plaintiff’s complaint in its entirety

without prejudice, Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel and motion for a TRO are

DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as moot.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed in Forma

Pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), but DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s

complaint as frivolous and for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The Court

also DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE as moot Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel

and Plaintiff’s motion for a TRO.

- 3 - 12cv613

Case 3:12-cv-00613-IEG-KSC Document 4 Filed 03/22/12 Page 3 of 4
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

Plaintiff is GRANTED thirty (30) days from the date this Order is filed to file a First

Amended Complaint addressing the deficiencies of the pleading set forth above. Plaintiff is

cautioned her First Amended Complaint must be complete in itself, without relying on references to

the original Complaint. Plaintiff is further cautioned any defendant not named or claim not

re-alleged will be considered waived. See King v. Attiyeh, 814 F.3d 1172, 1177-79 (9th Cir. 1996). 

Plaintiff is also cautioned that if her amended complaint does not state a claim, the Court may

dismiss her complaint without leave to amend.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 22, 2012 ______________________________

IRMA E. GONZALEZ

United States District Judge

- 4 - 12cv613

Case 3:12-cv-00613-IEG-KSC Document 4 Filed 03/22/12 Page 4 of 4