Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01271/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01271-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 18:1961 Racketeering (RICO) Act

---

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

1 11cv1271 BTM(WMC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRUCE DERRICK CALHOUN,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 11cv1271 BTM(WMC)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS;

DISMISSING COMPLAINT FOR

FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM;

DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

v.

SAN DIEGO COUNTY, et al.,

Defendant.

On June 9, 2011, Plaintiff filed a Complaint, a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

(“IFP Motion”), and a Motion for Appointment of Counsel. For the reasons discussed below,

the IFP Motion is granted, the Complaint is dismissed with leave to amend, and the Motion

for Appointment of Counsel is denied without prejudice.

I. DISCUSSION

A. Motion to Proceed IFP

Upon review of Plaintiff’s affidavit in support of his IFP Motion, the Court finds that

Plaintiff has made a sufficient showing of inability to pay the filing fees required to prosecute

this action. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s IFP Motion is GRANTED. 

B. Failure to State a Claim

Although the Court will allow Plaintiff to proceed IFP, Plaintiff’s Complaint must be

dismissed for failure to state a claim. The Court is under a continuing duty to dismiss an IFP

case whenever the Court determines that the action “fails to state a claim on which relief may

be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

Case 3:11-cv-01271-BTM-WMC Document 7 Filed 07/22/11 Page 1 of 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

2 11cv1271 BTM(WMC)

Plaintiff’s Complaint is incomprehensible and appears to be frivolous. Therefore, the

Court dismisses Plaintiff’s Complaint for failure to state a claim. The Court grants Plaintiff

leave to file an amended complaint on or before August 5, 2011. Failure to do so will result

in the closing of this case. 

C. Appointment of Counsel

There is no right to counsel in civil cases, and district courts may appoint counsel only

under “exceptional circumstances.” Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991).

“A finding of exceptional circumstances requires an evaluation of both ‘likelihood of success

on the merits and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the

complexity of the legal issues involved.’ Neither of these issues is dispositive and both must

be viewed together before reaching a decision.” Id. 

At this point in time, the Court cannot say that there is any likelihood of success on

the merits. Therefore, the Court DENIES without prejudice Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment

of Counsel. 

II. CONCLUSION

Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of

Counsel is DENIED without prejudice. Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice

for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Plaintiff may file a First

Amended Complaint on or before August 5, 2011. If Plaintiff fails to do so, the Court shall

close this case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 22, 2011

Honorable Barry Ted Moskowitz

United States District Judge

Case 3:11-cv-01271-BTM-WMC Document 7 Filed 07/22/11 Page 2 of 2