Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01725/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01725-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12101 The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990

---

1

18-cv-1725-WQH-WVG

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

ANTHONY NAVARRO,

Plaintiff,

v.

GASLAMP TAVERN, LLC and 

BAHYAG INC.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 18-cv-1725-WQH-WVG

ORDER

HAYES, Judge:

On July 27, 2018, Plaintiff Anthony Navarro initiated this action by filing a

Complaint (ECF No. 1) (the “Complaint”) and a Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis

(“IFP”) (ECF No. 2). 

I. IFP

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

United States, other than a petition for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of 

$400.00. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); CivLR 4.5. An action may proceed despite a party’s 

failure to pay only if the party is granted leave to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(a). See Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). 

The affidavit filed by Navarro states “I am unable to pay the costs of these 

proceedings.” (ECF No. 2 at 1). Navarro’s only income is $930.00 a month in 

“[d]isability,” and he has $905.00 of monthly expenses in the form of rent, utilities, food, 

clothing, and dry cleaning. Id. at 1, 4. Navarro has no bank accounts. Id. at 2. Navarro’s 

Motion to Proceed IFP (ECF No. 2) is GRANTED. 

Case 3:18-cv-01725-WQH-WVG Document 4 Filed 08/21/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

18-cv-1725-WQH-WVG

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

II. Initial Screening

A complaint filed by any person proceeding IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) is 

subject to mandatory review and sua sponte dismissal to the extent it “is frivolous or 

malicious; fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or seeks monetary relief 

from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Lopez v. 

Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). This screening standard applies to 

all civil actions filed by plaintiffs proceeding IFP. See 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.”).

The standard used to evaluate whether a complaint states a claim is a liberal one. 

See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). However, even a “liberal 

interpretation . . . may not supply elements of the claim that were not initially pled.” Ivey 

v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) provides “A pleading that states a claim for relief must 

contain . . . a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to 

relief.” “[A] plaintiff’s obligation to provide the grounds of his entitlement to relief 

requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a 

cause of action will not do.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) 

(quotation omitted).

Navarro brings the following causes of action against Defendants: (1) violation of

the Americans with Disabilities Act, (2) violation of California Civil Code §§ 51, 54 et 

seq., (3) negligence per se, (4) negligence, (5) declaratory relief, and (6) injunctive relief. 

Id. at ¶¶ 16–42. Navarro alleges that he is “mobility impaired,” uses a wheelchair, and is 

“classified as having a physical impairment.” Compl. at ¶ 10. Navarro alleges that, on or 

about December 23, 2017, he “was denied full and equal access to Gaslamp 

Tavern . . . because the property was inaccessible to individuals belonging to the disabled 

community who use wheel chairs for mobility.” Id. at ¶ 11. Navarro alleges that Gaslamp 

Tavern is “owned and/or operated by the Defendants.” Id. 

Case 3:18-cv-01725-WQH-WVG Document 4 Filed 08/21/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

18-cv-1725-WQH-WVG

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

Upon review, the Court concludes that Navarro’s Complaint adequately states a 

claim for purposes of the sua sponte screening required under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). 

Plaintiff is therefore automatically entitled to U.S. Marshal service on his behalf. See 

Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1126–27; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) (“The officers of the court shall issue 

and serve all process, and perform all duties in [IFP] cases.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(2) 

(providing that “service be effected by a United States marshal, deputy United States 

marshal, or other officer specially appointed by the court . . . when the plaintiff is authorized 

to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.”).

III. Conclusion

The Motion to Proceed IFP (ECF No. 2) is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court shall 

issue a summons and provide Plaintiff with the summons, certified copies of both this 

Order and the Complaint, and a blank U.S. Marshal Form 285. Plaintiff shall complete the 

U.S. Marshal Form 285 and forward the Form 285 and the designated copies of this Order 

and the Complaint to the U.S. Marshal. The U.S. Marshal shall serve a copy of the 

complaint and summons upon Defendants as directed by Plaintiff on the U.S. Marshal 

Form 285.

Dated: August 21, 2018

Case 3:18-cv-01725-WQH-WVG Document 4 Filed 08/21/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3