Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00617/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00617-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
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

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROGER WARREN,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 13cv617-LAB (BLM)

ORDER DENYING RENEWED

MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF

COUNSEL;

ORDER OF DISMISSAL; AND

ORDER DIRECTING U.S.

MARSHAL TO CEASE SERVICE

OF PROCESS

vs.

FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE

CORPORATION, et al.,

Defendant.

Plaintiff Roger Warren earlier filed a complaint in case number 12cv3029-LAB (BLM),

Warren v. Quality Loan Service Corporation, et al. Because Warren was proceeding in forma

pauperis, the Court conducted the mandatory screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) and

dismissed the complaint, finding that it failed to state a claim. The complaint in that case was

35 pages long and appeared to be attempting to raise claims relating to a foreclosure sale,.

but determining what Warren’s claims were or why he believed he was entitled to relief was

impossible. The Court dismissed the complaint without prejudice, and gave Warren an

opportunity to amend. He did not do so within the time permitted, however, and the Court

dismissed his complaint without leave to amend.

Warren then filed this action, and the case was assigned to the Hon. John Houston. 

Judge Houston granted Warren’s request to proceed in forma pauperis, and ordered the

- 1 - 13cv617

Case 3:13-cv-00617-LAB-BLM Document 21 Filed 05/10/13 Page 1 of 5
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

complaint served, albeit without conducting the mandatory screening. Warren also filed a

motion for appointment of counsel, which Judge Houston denied. But the motion revealed

that Warren had previously filed the earlier action, a fact he had not previously revealed.

Pursuant to this Court’s Civil Local Rule 40.1, the case was deemed related to the earlier

case and was transferred to Judge Larry A. Burns, who had adjudicated the original case.

Mandatory Screening

Because the mandatory screening has not yet been conducted, the Court now does

so. Although Warren has made some changes to the complaint, such as changing

Defendants, it appears this complaint is merely a somewhat edited version of the one that

was previously dismissed. For example, it is approximately the same length, and identifies

the same claims. The body of the complaint is as incomprehensible as before; it does not

comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8's “short and plain statement” requirement, nor is it possible to

say with any certainty what Warren’s claims are or why he believes he is entitled to relief. 

As with the earlier complaint, the complaint appears to be mostly a collection of legal

thoughts and questions strung together, including Warren’s own conclusions of law about

the effect of certain legal documents, and various questions he wants answered. The

complaint appears to consist in large part of materials cut and pasted together from other

documents. For instance, it refers to Warren in the plural (as “Plaintiffs” and elsewhere as

“we”), uses out-of-sequence paragraph numbering, abruptly shifts topics without explanation,

uses capitalized terms that have never been defined, makes accusations against non-party

MERS, and beginning on page 31 addresses an unidentified lending institution as “YOU.”

(See, e.g., Compl. 32:26 (“YOU are not the Real Party in Interest in this instant matter.”).)

Although it is chock full of legal terminology and citations, it disavows any understanding of

what legal terms mean. Very few facts are clearly alleged. 

In spite of these defects, it is apparent Warren wants to obtain ownership of his

property, which was sold in a foreclosure sale, but it is not apparent why he would be entitled

to it, or why this Court would have jurisdiction over his claims.

/ / /

- 2 - 13cv617

Case 3:13-cv-00617-LAB-BLM Document 21 Filed 05/10/13 Page 2 of 5
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 of the claims identified in the caption asks the Court to vacate a judgment against

him, suggesting that there is either a pending case in some other court, or that a final

judgment has been entered against him. His renewed application for appointment of counsel

(Docket no. 14) suggests Jennifer Poplin, Esq. represented him in a related unlawful

detainer action. If he is now attempting to appeal a final judgment in that action, or any other

action, this Court cannot exercise jurisdiction over his claims. If he is litigating the same or

related claims in state court (or another court), it is possible the Court would abstain from

hearing this case until that action is complete. In either case, Warren must give a full and

clear explanation of what legal actions he is involved in or has been involved in, that raise 

claims similar to or the same as those he is trying to bring here. He must give the case name

and number, tell what court they were or are being litigated in, tell when they were filed, what

issues they raised, and what the status of the litigation is.

Any amended complaint Warren files must also clearly allege facts to support his

claim and to explain what happened. By way of example, it must allege what documents

Warren signed, and when, and why he was signing them (e.g., to obtain money to buy a

house, or to borrow against his equity in the property), what happened later (e.g., he stopped

paying or refused to pay, his property was sold in a foreclosure sale, etc.) It must also clearly

identify what each party did. The Court mentions these by way of example only; looking at

the complaint as filed, there is no way of knowing for certain what happened, when, how, or

why.

Finally, large swaths of the complaint are so poorly photocopied as to be almost

illegible. Civil Local Rule 5.1(a) requires that all filed documents be clear and legible.

Because the complaint does not comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 or Civil Local Rule

5.1(a), and because it does not state a claim, it is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Warren may file an amended complaint no later than June 1, 2013. If he does so, the

amended complaint must comply with Rule 8, it must be completely legible, and it must state

whether the matters he now seeks to litigate are now being litigated in state court (or any

other court), or have already been litigated and, if so, what the status of that litigation is.

- 3 - 13cv617

Case 3:13-cv-00617-LAB-BLM Document 21 Filed 05/10/13 Page 3 of 5
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

Warren is cautioned that he is not entitled to unlimited chances to amend; he has

already had two chances to state a claim, and has not done so. In fact, he missed the

deadline to amend in his earlier case, and simply refiled another complaint later. Unless he

files an amended complaint within the time permitted that complies with Rule 8, that is

legible, and that states a claim — or at the very least clearly shows that he can do so — he

should expect his complaint to be dismissed without leave to amend.

Motion for Appointment of Counsel

There is no right to counsel in civil cases, and the Court may appoint counsel for a

litigant proceeding in forma pauperis only after a finding of exceptional circumstances. Terrell

v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9 Cir. 1991). This requires the Court to evaluate the th

likelihood of success on the merits, and the plaintiff’s ability to articulate his claims pro se

in light of the legal issues involved.

Although Warren is obviously capable of writing and filing pleadings and finding and

citing legal authority, the Court cannot discern what his claims are and thus cannot evaluate

the likelihood of success on the merits. Warren’s claims do not, however, raise any novel

or complex issues of law; to the contrary, in the Court’s experience, plaintiffs in this district

have been able to maintain similar types of claims pro se. Both Terrell factors thus weigh

against him, and the request for appointment of counsel is DENIED.

Order to U.S. Marshals Service

Judge Houston’s order of April 5, 2013 (Docket no. 7) directed the U.S. Marshals to

effect service of process on all Defendants. The summons has been returned executed as

to three Defendants (see Docket nos. 17, 18, and 19) and returned unexecuted as to one.

(See Docket no. 20.) Because the complaint has been dismissed, the U.S. Marshals are

ORDERED to cease service of process on any other Defendants, until further notice from

the Court.

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

- 4 - 13cv617

Case 3:13-cv-00617-LAB-BLM Document 21 Filed 05/10/13 Page 4 of 5
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

Those Defendants who have been served need not answer or otherwise respond to

any amended complaint, until the Court has conducted the mandatory screening of that

complaint and determined that it meets the minimum requirements.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 9, 2013

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

- 5 - 13cv617

Case 3:13-cv-00617-LAB-BLM Document 21 Filed 05/10/13 Page 5 of 5