Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00055/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00055-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN PAUL FREITAG,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 12-CV-55 - IEG (JMA)

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 APPOINTMENT OF

COUNSEL

[Doc. No. 3]

vs.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA;

EDWARD J. SCHWARTZ; W. SAMUEL

HAMRICK, JR.,

Defendants.

Plaintiff commenced this action on January 9, 2012 against Defendants United States

District Court, Southern District of California, Edward J. Schwartz, and W. Samuel Hamrick, Jr. 

[Doc. No. 1.] Along with his 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

- 1 - 12cv55

Case 3:12-cv-00055-IEG-JMA Document 5 Filed 01/30/12 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

the appointment of counsel.

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 - 12cv55

Case 3:12-cv-00055-IEG-JMA Document 5 Filed 01/30/12 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 or fact. Plaintiff’s complaint is one paragraph and

consists primarily of a string of conclusory legal statements and refers to Plaintiff’s rights under the

1st through 210th Amendments. [See Compl.] The only factual allegations contained in the

complaint refer to the District Court’s failure to appoint Plaintiff counsel in his seven civil suits.1

The Constitution provides no right to appointment of counsel in a civil case, unless an indigent

litigant may lose his physical liberty if he loses the litigation. Lassiter v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 452

U.S. 18, 25 (1981). Moreover, Plaintiffs claims against the District Court for failure to appoint him

counsel appear to be barred by the doctrine of absolute judicial immunity. See In re Castillo, 297

F.3d 940, 947 (9th Cir. 2002) (judicial immunity bars actions based upon judicial mistakes or

wrongs). Even affording Plaintiff’s complaint the special consideration given to pro se claimants,

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

legal theory against the Defendants. Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES WITHOUT

PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s complaint as frivolous and for failing to state a claim upon which relief

can be granted.

III. MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

In addition to his complaint, Plaintiff has also filed a motion for appointment of counsel. 

[Doc. No. 3.] Because the Court dismisses Plaintiff’s complaint in its entirety with prejudice,

Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as moot.

1

 Over the past few months, Plaintiff has filed nine other lawsuits in this district. See Freitag

v. Padilla, No. 11-cv-2725-IEG (filed Nov. 22, 2011); Freitag v. San Diego City Attorney, No. 11-cv2904- LAB (filed Dec. 13, 2011); Freitag v. Schmidt, No. 11-cv-2915-JAH (filed Dec. 14, 2011);

Freitag v. Gonzalez, No. 11-cv-2924-AJB (filed Dec. 15, 2011); Freitag v. City of San Diego

Ambassadors, No. 11-cv-2929-IEG (filed Dec. 16, 2011); Freitag v. City of San Diego, No. 11-cv2772-JAH (filed Nov. 29, 2011); Freitag v. City of San Diego Harbor Police, No. 11-cv-2999-IEG

(filed Dec. 23, 2011); Freitag v. Rural/Metro Ambulance San Diego, No. 12-cv-167-BEN (filed Jan.

20, 2012); Freitag v. Downtown Partnership Clean & Safe, No. 12-cv-203-DMS (filed Jan. 25, 2012). 

Several of the complaints in these cases have been dismissed sua sponte by the courts.

- 3 - 12cv55

Case 3:12-cv-00055-IEG-JMA Document 5 Filed 01/30/12 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

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 failing 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.

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 his 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 his amended complaint does not state a claim, the Court may

dismiss his complaint without leave to amend.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 30, 2012 ______________________________

IRMA E. GONZALEZ

United States District Judge

- 4 - 12cv55

Case 3:12-cv-00055-IEG-JMA Document 5 Filed 01/30/12 Page 4 of 4