Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00142/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00142-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

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 - 11cv142

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSEPH JONES,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 11FY0142 LAB (NLS)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS; 

DENYING MOTION TO APPOINT

COUNSEL; and 

DISMISSING SUA SPONTE FOR

FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM.

vs.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

Defendant.

Plaintiff, a homeless resident of the State of California proceeding pro se, has

submitted a complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, although the scant facts alleged seemingly

indicate that Plaintiff intended to allege a violation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He has also filed

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

I. Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP

The Court finds that Plaintiff’s affidavit supporting his Motion to Proceed IFP

sufficiently demonstrates that he cannot afford the $350.00 filing fee. Thus, the Court

GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP. 

II. Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel

The Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not extend to civil actions. Lassiter v.

Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981); Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th

Cir. 1997) (no constitutional right to counsel in a § 1983 action). A financially eligible plaintiff

Case 3:11-cv-00142-LAB-NLS Document 5 Filed 05/09/11 Page 1 of 3
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 - 11cv142

may obtain representation under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, but only if the Court determines there

are “exceptional circumstances” after it evaluates both the likelihood of success on the

merits and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se. See id. at 1525; Terrell

v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991). Additionally, the appointment of counsel

may be necessary if the plaintiff has such limited education that he or she is incapable of

presenting his or her claims. Hawkins v. Bennett, 423 F.2d 948, 950 (8th Cir. 1970). The

Court finds that Plaintiff’s due process rights are not in jeopardy, and that the pleadings

Plaintiff has filed thus far show him to be sufficiently capable of pursuing relief on his own.

The request is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE because neither the interests of

justice nor exceptional circumstances warrant appointment of counsel at this time.

III. Screening Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) & 1915A(b)

The Court is required to review complaints filed by all persons proceeding IFP and

must sua sponte dismiss any complaints, or any portions thereof, which are frivolous,

malicious, fail to state a claim, or which seek damages from defendants who are immune.

See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b). 

Here, the Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state a cognizable claim. As an initial matter,

there is neither a federal nor a state statutory right to shelter. If Plaintiff intended to allege

a violation of his civil rights, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, then he has failed to allege any

facts to support that claim. He has only alleged that he was denied admittance into a

homeless shelter; he has not indicated where the shelter is located, what the shelter is

called, or why the shelter refused to house him. 

Because the Plaintiff both failed to state a claim and to allege facts to support a claim,

this Court DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s complaint. 

IV. Order

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma

pauperis, DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for counsel, and DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Plaintiff’s complaint. The Court grants Plaintiff thirty (30) days from the date this Order is

entered in which to file an amended complaint which corrects the deficiencies of the pleading

Case 3:11-cv-00142-LAB-NLS Document 5 Filed 05/09/11 Page 2 of 3
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

- 3 - 11cv142

noted above. Plaintiff’s amended complaint must be complete in itself without reference to

the superseded pleading. See S.D. CA. CIV.LR. 15.1. Defendants not named and all claims

not re-alleged in the amended complaint will be deemed to have been waived. See King v.

Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 4, 2011

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

Case 3:11-cv-00142-LAB-NLS Document 5 Filed 05/09/11 Page 3 of 3