Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01392/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01392-0/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

10cv1392

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GRACE L. SANDOVAL,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 10cv1392 BTM (BLM)

vs. ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS;

[Doc. 2]

DENYING AS MOOT REQUEST

FOR APPOINTMENT OF

COUNSEL;

[Doc. 3]

DISMISSING COMPLAINT

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

JAMILLAH BOBAL,

Defendant.

Plaintiff Grace L. Sandoval, proceeding pro se, has filed a complaint [Doc. 1], along with a

Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) [Doc. 2] and a Request for Appointment Counsel

[Doc. 3]. Based on the information Plaintiffs provides, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), the Court

GRANTS Plaintiff’s IFP motion. The Court is obligated to review a complaint filed IFP sua sponte

and must dismiss the action if it determines that the complaint is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state

a claim for relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). After careful review, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s

complaint is frivolous and void of any plausible claims for relief. The Complaint is but one in a

series of frivolous complaints filed by Plaintiff. Because “it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies

of the complaint could not be cured by amendment,” the Court DISMISSES the complaint without

prejudice and without leave to amend. Franklin v. Murphy, 245 F.2d 1221, 1228 n.9 (9th Cir.

1984). As such, the Court DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiff’s Request for Appointment of Counsel. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 7, 2010

Honorable Barry Ted Moskowitz

United States District Judge

Case 3:10-cv-01392-BTM-BLM Document 4 Filed 07/07/10 Page 1 of 1