Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-02894/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-02894-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 350
Nature of Suit: Motor Vehicle Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 18:1962 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 - 09cv2894

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GRACE L. SANDOVAL,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 09cv2894 JM(JMA)

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT

WITHOUT PREJUDICE; DENYING

MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS; DENYING MOTION

FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

vs.

JOE S. REYNA,

Defendant.

Over the past several years, Plaintiff Grace L. Sandoval has filed in excess of 90 separate

actions in this district. 08cv1297, 08cv1621, 08cv1622, 08cv1623, 08cv1848, 08cv1849, 08cv1853,

98cv1854, 08cv1868, 08cv1869, 08cv1870, 08cv1944, 08cv2004, 08cv2005, 08cv2057, 08cv2104,

08cv2105, 08cv2151, 09cv0269, 09cv0422, 09cv423, 09cv0424, 09cv0437, 09cv0438, 09cv0441,

09cv0454, 09cv0455, 09cv0456, 09cv0474, 09cv0475, 09cv0476, 09cv0477, 09cv0478, 09cv0491,

09cv0492, 09cv0493, 09cv0494, 09cv0495, 09cv582, 09cv0583, 09cv585, 09cv586, 09cv0588,

09cv0600, 09cv0642, 09cv1232, 09cv1506, 09cv1506, 09cv1507, 09cv1508, 09cv1514, 09cv1515,

09cv1520, 09cv1524, 09cv1526, 09cv1849, 09cv2122, 09cv2141, 09cv2148, 09cv2204, 09cv2205,

09cv2206, 09cv2217, 09cv2218, 09cv2217, 09cv2218, 09cv2244, 09cv2245, 09cv2250, 09cv2251,

09cv2252, 09cv2304, 09cv2305, 09cv2306, 09cv2307, 09cv2308, 09cv2309, 09cv2310, 09cv2311,

09cv2312, 09cv2313, 09cv2450, 09cv2452, 09cv2453, 09cv2462,09cv2463, 09cv2464, 09cv2465,

09cv2466, 09cv2467, 09cv2526, 09cv2528. Each action was brought in propria persona and in forma

Case 3:09-cv-02894-JM-JMA Document 4 Filed 01/04/10 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 - 09cv2894

pauperis. Each appears to have been dismissed as frivolous or for failure to state a claim. The present

complaint fairs no better. 

Without identifying the basis for the court’s subject matter jurisdiction, the complaint sets forth

a rambling narrative of charges and conclusions concerning, for example, allegations that Defendant,

and his brother, planned to steal everything Plaintiff owns and to “kidnap children born premature[ly]

with the drug provera.” (Compl. at p.1). As the present complaint, like the scores of previously filed

complaints, fails to identify any basis for federal jurisdiction, or to set forth a coherent statement of

her claims, the court dismisses the complaint at bar as frivolous, for failure to state a claim, and for

lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

The Clerk of Court is instructed to dismiss the action without prejudice. Until Plaintiff pays

the filing fee or demonstrates an imminent danger of serious physical injury, the Clerk of Court is

instructed to reject for filing any further document received from Plaintiff in this case. The court also

denies Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and for appointment of counsel as moot. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 4, 2010

 Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller

 United States District Judge

cc: All parties

Case 3:09-cv-02894-JM-JMA Document 4 Filed 01/04/10 Page 2 of 2