Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02066/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02066-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 320
Nature of Suit: Assault, Libel, and Slander
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

20 

19 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

27 

26 

28 

\I·L.~l t l' f

t \ 4 

8V~-----

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

CARL A. WASHAM, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

BRANDON EVANS; et aI., 

Defendants. 

CASE NO. 12-CV-2066 BEN (BGS) 

ORDER: 

(1) DISMISSING ACTION 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE 

(2) DENYING AS MOOT 

MOTION TO PROCEED IN 

FORMA PAUPERIS 

(3) DENYING AS MOOT 

MOTION TO APPOINT 

COUNSEL 

[Docket Nos. 8, 9] 

Pro se Plaintiff Carl A. Washam filed an Amended Complaint against Brandon 

Evans and Jermone Washington. (Docket No.7.) Plaintiff also filed a motion to 

proceed in forma pauperis (Docket No.8) and a motion to appoint counsel (Docket 

No.9). The Court decides the matters on the papers submitted. For the reasons 

outlined below, the Court DISMISSES the action without prejudice and DENIES as 

moot Plaintiffs motion to proceed in forma pauperis and motion to appoint counsel. 

BACKGROUND 

Plaintiff alleges that he was previously a member of24 Hour Fitness. (Amend. 

CompL at 1.) Plaintiff alleges: 

1 12-CV-2066 

Case 3:12-cv-02066-BEN-BGS Document 10 Filed 03/14/13 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 

One day I came in to work out and shower- And Brandon Evans & 

Jermone Washington called me over to their desk and discontinued my membership. They would never bring the people up that they say was 

complaining, but I know their [sic] wasn'fno one to be involve [sic], 

because I never got into any kind oftrouble. 

(Id. at 1-2.) According to Plaintiff, this constituted an "unlawful discontinuing of 

membership." (Id. at 2.) 

DISCUSSION 

I. SUA SPONTE SCREENING AND DISMISSAL 

A complaint filed by any person proceeding, or seeking to proceed, in forma 

pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) is subject to mandatory sua sponte review and 

dismissal ifthe complaint is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which 

relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant immune from suit. 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000). 

The legal sufficiency of a complaint is tested under Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 12(b)(6). Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d 729, 732 (9th Cir. 2001). Under Rule 

12(b)(6), dismissal is appropriate if the complaint fails to state a facially plausible 

claim for relief. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556-57 (2007). That is, the 

complaint must state enough facts to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will 

reveal evidence of the claim. Id. at 556. Dismissal is also appropriate when the 

complaint lacks a cognizable legal theory. Robertson v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 

749 F.2d 530, 534 (9th Cir. 1984). The court must assume the truth of all factual 

allegations and construe them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Thompson 

v. Davis, 295 F.3d 890, 895 (9th Cir. 2002); Cahill v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 80 F.3d 

336,337-38 (9th Cir. 1996). Pro se litigants are not "excused from knowing the most 

basic pleading requirements." Am. Ass 'n ofNaturopathic Physicians v. Hayhurst, 227 

F.3d 1104, 1107 (9th Cir. 2000). 

Here, Plaintiff has not cited any law that affords him relief for the 

discontinuation of his membership at 24 Hour Fitness. Accordingly, the Amended 

Complaint lacks a cognizable legal theory. The Amended Complaint is, therefore, 

- 2- 12-CV-2066 

Case 3:12-cv-02066-BEN-BGS Document 10 Filed 03/14/13 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 

DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

II. 	 MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND MOTION TO APPOINT 

COUNSEL 

Because Plaintiffs Amended Complaint is dismissed, Plaintiffs motion to 

proceed in forma pauperis and motion to appoint counsel are DENIED as moot. 

CONCLUSION 

For the reasons stated above, the Amended Complaint is DISMISSED 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiff is granted leave to file a second amended 

complaint that corrects the deficiencies outlined above. Any such second amended 

complaint must be filed no later than April 18. 2013. 

The motion to proceed in forma pauperis and motion to appoint counsel are 

DENIED as moot. If Plaintiff wishes to renew the motion to proceed in forma 

pauperis or the motion to appoint counsel, Plaintiff must file a new motion to proceed 

in forma pauperis and motion to appoint counsel along with a second amended 

complaint. 

DATED: 

3-	 12-CV-2066 

Case 3:12-cv-02066-BEN-BGS Document 10 Filed 03/14/13 Page 3 of 3