Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02936/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02936-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331cv Fed. Question: Other Civil Rights

---

1

15CV2936 BEN (JLB)

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DERRICK JONES,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE PEOPLE,

Defendant.

Case No.: 15CV2936 BEN (JLB)

ORDER:

(1) GRANTING MOTION TO 

PROCEED IFP

(2) SUA SPONTE DISMISSING 

COMPLAINT

(3) DENYING MOTION FOR 

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

[Docket Nos. 1-3]

Plaintiff Derrick Jones, proceeding pro se, has filed a Complaint. (Docket No. 1.) 

Plaintiff has not paid the civil filing fee required to commence this action, but has filed a 

Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) and a Motion to Appoint Counsel. (Docket 

Nos. 2-3.) For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS the motion to proceed 

IFP and sua sponte screens and DISMISSES the Complaint for lack of subject matter 

jurisdiction.

///

Case 3:15-cv-02936-BEN-JLB Document 4 Filed 03/22/16 Page 1 of 4
2

15CV2936 BEN (JLB)

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

DISCUSSION

I. Motion to Proceed IFP

All parties instituting any civil action in a district court must pay a filing fee. 28 

U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed despite a plaintiff’s failure to prepay the entire 

fee only if the plaintiff is granted leave to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1),

[A]ny court of the United States may authorize the 

commencement, prosecution or defense of any suit, action or 

proceeding . . . without prepayment of fees or security therefor, 

by a person who submits an affidavit that includes a statement 

of all assets such [person] possesses that the person is unable to 

pay such fees or give security therefor.

Because the information provided in Plaintiff’s affidavit reflects an inability to pay 

the fee to pursue this action, Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(a) is GRANTED. 

II. Sua Sponte Screening

An IFP complaint is subject to mandatory screening. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(2)(B), the Court must dismiss any complaint if at any time the Court determines 

that 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 such relief.” The sua 

sponte screening is mandatory. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000) 

(en banc); see also Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (per curiam) 

(“[T]he provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) are not limited to prisoners.”).

It is hard to determine the factual or legal basis for Plaintiff’s Complaint, however, 

there is no basis for this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction in the Complaint. Rather than 

name a defendant, the Complaint identifies “The People.” This might suggest Plaintiff is 

attempting to challenge a state court criminal conviction, however, he identifies 

violations of numerous California penal code sections on the second page of his 

Case 3:15-cv-02936-BEN-JLB Document 4 Filed 03/22/16 Page 2 of 4
3

15CV2936 BEN (JLB)

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

Complaint.

1

 There are individuals identified in association with these penal code 

sections, but it is not clear if Plaintiff is attempting to name them as defendants.2 

Assuming Plaintiff named a proper defendant and the penal code sections he cites 

provide for a private right of action, those claims would be state law claims. Federal 

courts generally lack subject matter jurisdiction over state law claims unless the parties 

are citizens of different states, i.e. diverse, and the amount in controversy exceeds 

$75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. As no defendants are named, there are no allegations as to 

the citizenship of the parties, although it appears some may be San Diego law 

enforcement. This would suggest no diversity given Plaintiff appears to be a California 

citizen. There are also no allegations as to an amount in controversy. The relief Plaintiff 

requests is an “Order to show casuse[sic] returnable before the San Diego Court with 

Directions to appoint counsel and hold evidentiary hearing, or dismiss the case outright 

due to conceded outrageous misconduct by the San Diego Police.” Although the Court is 

unclear of the basis for this relief or what case Plaintiff seeks to dismiss, it does appear

that Plaintiff is seeking action by a state court. Given only state statutes are cited and 

Plaintiff appears to seek action by a state court, it is very unclear why he has filed an 

action in federal court. Because this Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction, this 

action must be dismissed. 

Although it appears Plaintiff is very unlikely to be able to state a claim over which 

this Court would have jurisdiction, the Court grants Plaintiff leave to file a First 

Amended Complaint that cures the deficiencies noted above. If Plaintiff elects to file a 

FAC, it must be filed on or before May 1, 2016. If Plaintiff does not file a FAC by May 

 

1 The final page of the attachments to his Complaint is a state court denial of a writ of habeas corpus as 

to Plaintiff and there are statements associated with the state penal code sections concerning false 

testimony and perjury. However, all the other attachments attached to the Complaint relate to the 

conviction of a different person, Gary Peavy. 

2 The individuals are not identified in the caption or identified as parties to the action. 

Case 3:15-cv-02936-BEN-JLB Document 4 Filed 03/22/16 Page 3 of 4
4

15CV2936 BEN (JLB)

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

1, 2016, the case will remain closed. 

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff’s motion to proceed IFP is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s Complaint is sua 

sponte DISMISSED. Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel is DENIED as 

moot. If Plaintiff wishes to file a FAC, it must be filed by May 1, 2016.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 21, 2016

Case 3:15-cv-02936-BEN-JLB Document 4 Filed 03/22/16 Page 4 of 4