Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01869/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01869-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other 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

- 1 - 08cv1869

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GRACE L. SANDOVAL,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 08cv1869-L(NLS)

ORDER (1) GRANTING

MOTION TO PROCEED IN

FORMA PAUPERIS; (2)

DENYING REQUEST FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL;

AND (3) DISMISSING

COMPLAINT

vs.

LEONARD FINK.

Defendant.

Plaintiff Grace L. Sandoval, proceeding pro se, has submitted a complaint pursuant

to 18 U.S.C. § 1962. With the complaint Plaintiff filed a Motion to Proceed in Forma

Pauperis and a Request for Appointment of Counsel.

 All parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in a United States District

Court must pay a filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed despite a

plaintiff’s failure to prepay the fee only if the plaintiff 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). Plaintiff’s declaration shows she has insufficient income and assets to pay

the filing fee. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is granted.

The court is obligated to review a complaint filed in forma pauperis and must

dismiss it if it determines that the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on

which relief may be granted or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune

Case 3:08-cv-01869-L-NLS Document 5 Filed 10/24/08 Page 1 of 4
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

- 2 - 08cv1869

from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see also Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845 (9th

Cir. 2001). “[W]hen determining whether a complaint states a claim, a court must accept

as true all allegations of material fact and must construe those facts in the light most

favorable to the plaintiff.” Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). 

A complaint will be considered frivolous, and therefore subject to dismissal under 

§ 1915(e)(2)(B), “where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Nietzke v.

Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); see also Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33

(1992). A federal court cannot properly sua sponte dismiss an action commenced in forma

pauperis applicant if the facts alleged in the complaint are merely “unlikely.” Denton, 504

U.S. at 33. However, a complaint may be properly dismissed sua sponte if the allegations

are found to be “fanciful,” “fantastic,” or “delusional,” or if they rise to the level of the

irrational or the wholly incredible.” Id. In addition, cases which “merely repeat[] pending

or previously alleged claims” may be dismissed as frivolous. Caro v. United States, 70

F.3d 1103, 1105 n.2 (9th Cir. 1995). If a case is classified as frivolous, “there is, by

definition, no merit to the underlying action and so no reason to grant leave to amend.”

Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 n.8 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc).

Plaintiff claims her action arises under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt

Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. § 1962(a), (b), (c) and/or (d). (See docket no. 1,

Civil Cover Sheet.) Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c), “[a]ny person injured in his business

or property by reason of a violation of section 1962 of this chapter may sue therefor in any

appropriate United States district court . . ..” 

Neither the complaint nor the accompanying RICO Case Statement is sufficient to

state a claim. In a 33-page complaint, devoid of any headings or even paragraphs, Plaintiff

offers a stream-of -consciousness account of alleged criminal activity. 

The allegations are essentially the same as those Plaintiff made in Sandoval v. Pina,

case no. 08cv1297-L(LSP). The complaint is therefore dismissed as frivolous. See Caro,

70 F.3d at 1105 n.2.

/ / / / /

Case 3:08-cv-01869-L-NLS Document 5 Filed 10/24/08 Page 2 of 4
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

- 3 - 08cv1869

In the alternative, as with Plaintiff’s prior allegations, her current allegations of

assault, personal injuries, rape, kidnaping, and burglary, allegedly perpetrated by Defendant

and other persons whose connection to Defendant is unclear, are insufficient to state a

RICO claim. “A civil RICO claim requires allegations of the conduct of an enterprise

through a pattern of racketeering activity that proximately caused injury to the plaintiff.” 

Swartz v. KPMG LLP, 476 F.3d 756, 760-61 (9th Cir. 2007). Specifically, the “elements of

a civil RICO claim are as follows: (1) conduct (2) of an enterprise (3) through a pattern (4)

of racketeering activity (known as predicate acts) (5) causing injury to plaintiff's business

or property.” Living Designs, Inc. v. E.I. Dupont de Nemours & Co., 431 F.3d 353, 361

(9th Cir. 2005). To establish liability, “one must allege and prove the existence of two

distinct entities: (1) a ‘person’; and (2) an ‘enterprise’ that is not simply the same ‘person’

referred to by a different name.” Id. The allegations in the complaint do not provide a

basis for an inference that the alleged criminal activity was a part of an enterprise or that

Defendant was engaged in such an enterprise. Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed

because it fails to state a claim for a civil RICO violation.

Finally, Plaintiff’s allegations are fanciful and fantastic rather than merely unlikely. 

An example of Plaintiff’s “wholly incredible” allegations is that 

Leonard Fink is joined with the orphans that have multiple diseases in taking

large amounts of human blood from Americans in San Diego County,

California and many other counties in California where he, Leon Fink travels

in his blue Toyota truck. Leonard Fink is operating dialysis machines

illegally in private homes by forcing into private homes to take human blood

illegally. . . . Leonard Fink is joined with registered nurses from the country

of Phillippines that are employed at the U.C.S.D. Medical Center, W. Arbor,

San Diego, California in operating dialysis machines illegally in private

homes. The registered nurses employed at U.C.S.D. Medical Center, W.

Arbor, San Diego, California have false degrees. 

Another example is that 

Leonard Fink forces into private homes to steal money, food, etc. for his

heroin addiction, etc. Leonard Fink relative . . . Virginia Cuthriel was

employed for the Welfare Department, La Mesa, California. [She] informed

Leonard Fink of all my information when I . . . was a student at San Diego

State University, San Diego, California where I . . . was invaded by many

illegals, orphans, criminals, drug addicts, etc. involved with the German

families in San Diego County, California including Robert Goodman Sr. that

claims to be a United States veteran. . . . [He] invaded my relative, the star

Case 3:08-cv-01869-L-NLS Document 5 Filed 10/24/08 Page 3 of 4
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

- 4 - 08cv1869

Elvis Presley in La Miranda, California with many drug addicts including the

orphan, O.J. Simpson and his gay love, Patrick J. Clark. Robert Goodman Sr.

planned to invade all Hollywood stars . . . with illegal drug and harmful

substances from Mexico. Robert Goodman Sr. invaded Elvis Presley with an

Indian from Rincon Indian Reservation, San Diego, California, Priscilla

Spencer.

Although in some cases it may be difficult to judge whether a plaintiff’s factual allegations

are truly “fanciful,” “fantastic,” or “delusional” as opposed to merely “unlikely,” this is not

such a case. See Denton, 504 U.S. at 33. These allegations “rise[] to the level of irrational

or the wholly incredible.” Id. Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed as frivolous. See

Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1127 n.8.

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is

GRANTED. Further, the complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. 

Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED as moot..

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 24, 2008

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

COPY TO:

HON. NITA L. STORMES

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL

Case 3:08-cv-01869-L-NLS Document 5 Filed 10/24/08 Page 4 of 4