Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01978/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01978-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:2201 Creation of a Remedy - Declaration of Rights

---

1

19-CV-1978 JLS (BGS)

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

YUTZ MCDOUGAL,

Plaintiff,

v.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, 

et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 19-CV-1978 JLS (BGS)

ORDER: (1) GRANTING MOTION 

TO PROCEED IN FORMA 

PAUPERIS; (2) DISMISSING 

COMPLAINT; AND (3) DENYING 

PENDING MOTIONS

(ECF Nos. 2, 15, 17, 19)

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Yutz McDougal’s Motion to Proceed In Forma 

Pauperis (“IFP”) (ECF No. 2). Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, alleges various government 

agencies have “interfered with [Plaintiff]’s pursuit of property and . . . [have] prevented his 

ability to seek, acquire and prosper within the private sector.” ECF No. 1 at 16. Plaintiff

seeks “discovery and disclosure from [D]efendants” as well as declaratory and injunctive 

relief. See id. at 18–19. 

Also before the Court are Plaintiff’s various motions requesting to appear before the 

Court (ECF No. 15), requesting an assessment of the Court’s capability to render an 

unbiased opinion (ECF No. 17), and requesting the status of his case (ECF No. 19). The 

Court addresses these motions and the sufficiency of the Complaint below. 

///

Case 3:19-cv-01978-JLS-BGS Document 26 Filed 04/20/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

19-CV-1978 JLS (BGS)

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

I. Motion to Proceed IFP

All parties instituting any civil action, suit, or proceeding in a district court of the 

United States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of

$400. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed despite a plaintiff’s failure to 

prepay the entire fee only if the party is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). A 

federal court may authorize the commencement of an action without the prepayment of 

fees if the party submits an affidavit, including a statement of assets, showing that the party 

is unable to pay the required filing fee. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

Plaintiff’s application to proceed IFP indicates that his average monthly income 

during the past year was $300.00, he is currently unemployed, and he has no other assets.

ECF No. 2 at 1–2. At the time of filing, Plaintiff had negative $40.00 in his bank account. 

Id. at 2. Plaintiff indicates that his monthly expenses total $290. Id. Given these facts, the 

Court concludes Plaintiff is unable to pay the requisite fees and costs. Accordingly, the 

Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP.

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

Notwithstanding IFP status, the Court must screen every civil action brought 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) and dismiss any case it finds “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 relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see also Calhoun v. 

Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (“[T]he provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) 

are not limited to prisoner.”); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126–27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en 

banc) (noting that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) “not only permits but requires a district court to 

dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint that fails to state a claim”).

A pleading, “containing as it does both factual allegations and legal conclusions, is 

frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 

U.S. 319, 325 (1989) (“[The] term ‘frivolous,’ when applied to a complaint, embraces not 

only the inarguable legal conclusion, but also the fanciful factual allegation.”). A pleading 

Case 3:19-cv-01978-JLS-BGS Document 26 Filed 04/20/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

19-CV-1978 JLS (BGS)

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

is “factual[ly] frivolous[]” if “the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly 

incredible, whether or not there are judicially noticeable facts available to contradict them.” 

Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 25–26 (1992). When determining whether a complaint 

is frivolous, the court need not accept the allegations as true, but must “pierce the veil of 

the complaint’s factual allegations,” Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327, to determine whether they 

are “‘fanciful,’ ‘fantastic,’ [or] ‘delusional.’” Denton, 504 U.S. at 33 (quoting Neitzke, 490 

U.S. at 328). 

Here, the Court finds Plaintiff’s Complaint “lacks an arguable basis” in both law and

fact and is therefore frivolous. Plaintiff contends that multiple government agencies have 

conspired over the course of his entire life to deprive him of fair and equal education and 

employment opportunities. See generally ECF No. 1. Among the many allegations, 

Plaintiff alleges the United States Department of Education enacted a plan to have other 

students lie to lower Plaintiff’s grades, force professors to deny Plaintiff advancement in 

sporting and academic endeavors, and have professors and students cause physical and 

mental harm to Plaintiff. Id. at 7. Once out of school, Plaintiff alleges the Department of 

Labor, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Justice, and the 

Department of Defense arranged for Plaintiff to work at various jobs so they could force 

Plaintiff “to perform the work the government need[ed] performed.” See id. at 7–11. These 

government agencies also ensured Plaintiff suffered hostile work environments and 

“general unpleasantness” at each of these jobs. Id. Finally, Plaintiff alleges he “has been 

forced to endure ‘homelessness’ in California for the past 6 years” because of “either (a) 

an unsanctioned prison scenario used to punish certain human targets or (b) a training 

scenario designed by the U.S. departments so named.” Id. at 11. 

After a review of the allegations in the Complaint, the Court finds the facts as alleged 

are “wholly incredible” and rise to the level of “fanciful, fantastic, and delusional.” 

Denton, 504 U.S. at 25–26, 33 (quoting Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 328) (internal quotations 

omitted). Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiff’s Complaint as frivolous and 

without leave to amend. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 n.8 (9th Cir. 2000) (en 

Case 3:19-cv-01978-JLS-BGS Document 26 Filed 04/20/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

19-CV-1978 JLS (BGS)

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

banc) (noting that if a claim is classified as frivolous, “there is by definition no merit to the 

underlying action and so no reason to grant leave to amend.”).

III. Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP, 

(ECF No. 2). The Court hereby DISMISSES Plaintiff’s Complaint as frivolous pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and without leave to amend. Plaintiff’s remaining motions are 

DENIED AS MOOT (ECF Nos. 15, 17, 19). The Court CERTIFIES that an IFP appeal 

from this Order would also be frivolous and, therefore, would not be taken in good faith 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 

(1962); Gardner v. Pogue, 558 F.2d 548, 550 (9th Cir. 1977) (indigent appellant is 

permitted to proceed IFP on appeal only if appeal would not be frivolous). The Clerk of 

Court SHALL CLOSE the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 20, 2020

Case 3:19-cv-01978-JLS-BGS Document 26 Filed 04/20/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4