Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02379/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02379-0/pdf.json

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

---

– 1 – 16cv2379 

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 

JOSEPH SORCE, JR., 

 Plaintiff, 

Case No. 16-cv-2379-BAS(RBB) 

ORDER: 

(1) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA 

PAUPERIS; 

(2) DISMISSING COMPLAINT 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE 

PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(e)(2)(B)(ii); AND 

(3) TERMINATING 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

APPOINTMENT OF 

COUNSEL AS MOOT 

[ECF Nos. 2, 3] 

 v. 

PARAWEST MANAGEMENT 

REAL ESTATE, et al., 

 Defendants. 

On September 22, 2016, Plaintiff Joseph Sorce, Jr., proceeding pro se, 

commenced this action against Defendants Parawest Management Real Estate, 

Crystle Springs Real Estate, and College Grove Apartments. On the same day, 

Plaintiff also filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) and a 

motion for appointment of counsel. (ECF Nos. 2-3.) 

Case 3:16-cv-02379-BAS-RBB Document 4 Filed 10/13/16 Page 1 of 5
 – 2 – 16cv2379 

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 

For the reasons discussed below, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to 

proceed IFP, DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the complaint pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), and TERMINATES AS MOOT Plaintiff’s motion for 

appointment of counsel,. 

I. MOTION FOR IN FORMA PAUPERIS

The determination of indigency falls within the district court’s discretion. Cal. 

Men’s Colony v. Rowland, 939 F.2d 854, 858 (9th Cir. 1991), rev’d on other grounds,

506 U.S. 194 (1993) (holding that “Section 1915 typically requires the reviewing 

court to exercise its sound discretion in determining whether the affiant has satisfied 

the statute’s requirement of indigency”). It is well-settled that a party need not be 

completely destitute to proceed in forma pauperis. Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours 

& Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339-40 (1948). To satisfy the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(a), “an affidavit [of poverty] is sufficient which states that one cannot because 

of his poverty pay or give security for costs . . . and still be able to provide himself 

and dependents with the necessities of life.” Id. at 339. At the same time, however, 

“the same even-handed care must be employed to assure that federal funds are not 

squandered to underwrite, at public expense, . . . the remonstrances of a suitor who 

is financially able, in whole or in material part, to pull his own oar.” Temple v. 

Ellerthorpe, 586 F. Supp. 848, 850 (D.R.I. 1984). 

District courts, therefore, tend to reject IFP applications where the applicant 

can pay the filing fee with acceptable sacrifice to other expenses. See e.g., Stehouwer 

v. Hennessey, 841 F. Supp. 316, 321 (N.D. Cal. 1994), vacated in part on other 

grounds, Olivares v. Marshall, 59 F.3d 109 (9th Cir. 1995) (finding that a district 

court did not abuse its discretion in requiring a partial fee payment from a prisoner 

who had a $14.61 monthly salary and who received $110 per month from family). 

Moreover, “in forma pauperis status may be acquired and lost during the course of 

litigation.” Wilson v. Dir. of Div. of Adult Insts., No. CIV S-06-0791, 2009 WL 

Case 3:16-cv-02379-BAS-RBB Document 4 Filed 10/13/16 Page 2 of 5
 – 3 – 16cv2379 

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 

311150, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 9, 2009) (citing Stehouwer, 841 F. Supp. at 321); see 

also Allen v. Kelly, 1995 WL 396860, at *2 (N.D. Cal. June 29, 1995) (holding that 

a plaintiff who was initially permitted to proceed in forma pauperis should be 

required to pay his $120 filing fee out of a $900 settlement). In addition, the facts as 

to the affiant’s poverty must be stated “with some particularity, definiteness, and 

certainty.” United States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 940 (9th Cir. 1981). 

Having read and considered Plaintiff’s application, the Court finds that 

Plaintiff meets the requirements in 28 U.S.C. § 1915 for IFP status. Plaintiff is an 

unemployed 44-year-old receiving $254 monthly for “general relief.” (IFP Mot. ¶¶ 

1-2, 12.) No other sources of income or assets are listed. (Id. ¶¶ 1-2, 5-6.) Plaintiff’s 

expenses amount to almost $400 per month. (Id. ¶ 8.) Plaintiff’s expenses and debt 

are clearly greater than his current sources of income. Consequently, the Court finds 

that requiring Plaintiff to pay the court filing fees would impair his ability to obtain 

the necessities of life. See Adkins, 335 U.S. at 339. 

In light of the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s application for leave 

to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 2.) However, if it appears at any time in the 

future that Plaintiff’s financial picture has improved for any reason, the Court will 

direct Plaintiff to pay the filing fee to the Clerk of the Court. This includes any 

recovery Plaintiff may realize from this suit or others, and any assistance 

Plaintiff may receive from family or the government. 

II. SUA SPONTE SCREENING PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) 

Notwithstanding payment of any filing fee or portion thereof, a complaint filed 

by any person proceeding in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) is 

subject to a mandatory and sua sponte review and dismissal by the court to the extent 

it is “frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or 

. . . seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief[.]” 

Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1141 n.6 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc); see also 28 U.S.C. 

Case 3:16-cv-02379-BAS-RBB Document 4 Filed 10/13/16 Page 3 of 5
 – 4 – 16cv2379 

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 

§ 1915(e)(2)(B); Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (per curiam) 

(“[T]he provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) are not limited to prisoners.”). 

Section 1915(e)(2) mandates that the court reviewing a complaint filed pursuant to 

the IFP provisions of § 1915 make and rule on its own motion to dismiss before 

directing that the complaint be served by the U.S. Marshal pursuant to Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 4(c)(3). Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1127 (“[S]ection 1915(e) not only 

permits, but requires a district court to dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint that 

fails to state a claim.”); see also Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 

1998) (noting the “the language of § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) parallels the language of 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)”). 

As currently pleaded, Plaintiff’s one-page, handwritten complaint is subject to 

sua sponte dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). The only wrongful conduct 

Plaintiff describes are: (1) Defendants’ failure to accommodate an unspecified 

disability by renting a “downstairs” apartment unit; and (2) unspecified harassment, 

though the harassment may be the act of calling law enforcement without a proper 

reason (“the defendant are [sic] abusing the system by calling the police to my 

house”). 

Assuming the ADA applies, “[t]he question whether a particular 

accommodation is reasonable ‘depends on the individual circumstances of each case’ 

and requires a fact-specific, individualized analysis of the disabled individual’s 

circumstances and the accommodations that might allow him to meet the program’s 

standards.” Vinson v. Thomas, 288 F.3d 1145, 1154 (9th Cir. 2002). However, the 

circumstances described in the complaint are too vague for the Court to permit this 

claim to proceed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). The facts provided are 

inadequate for the Court to conclude that Plaintiff states a plausible claim for relief. 

See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 

550 U.S. 544, 556 (2007)). 

// 

Case 3:16-cv-02379-BAS-RBB Document 4 Filed 10/13/16 Page 4 of 5
 – 5 – 16cv2379 

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 

Plaintiff’s harassment claim is also ambiguous. Assuming Plaintiff asserts a 

harassment claim under California law, California’s Code of Civil Procedure § 527.6 

may apply. Section 527.6 defines harassment as the “unlawful violence, a credible 

threat of violence, or a knowing and willful course of conduct directed at a specific 

person that seriously alarms, annoys, or harasses the person, and that serves no 

legitimate purpose.” It adds that “[t]he course of conduct must be such as would cause 

a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress, and must actually cause 

substantial emotional distress to the petitioner.” Plaintiff alleges that police are sent 

to “knock on [his] door 20 times in a month,” which the Court suspects may qualify 

as annoying or harassing conduct if done without a legitimate purpose, but no facts 

are provided describing specific instances or whether Plaintiff sustained “substantial 

emotional distress.” And it remains unclear whether § 527.6 is even the law Plaintiff 

seeks to invoke in bringing his harassment claim. That effectively means Plaintiff 

fails to plead the claim with sufficient specificity to “give the defendant[s] fair notice 

of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” See Twombly, 550 U.S. 

at 555. 

In sum, Plaintiff fails to state a plausible claim upon which relief may be 

granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii); Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. 

III. CONCLUSION & ORDER 

In light of the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to proceed 

IFP (ECF No. 2), DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the complaint pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), and TERMINATES AS MOOT Plaintiff’s motion 

for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 3). 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: September 30, 2016 

Case 3:16-cv-02379-BAS-RBB Document 4 Filed 10/13/16 Page 5 of 5