Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-02309/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-02309-0/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 - 09cv2309

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GRACE L. SANDOVAL,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 09cv2309-L(RBB)

ORDER (1) GRANTING

MOTION TO PROCEED IN

FORMA PAUPERIS; (2)

DENYING REQUEST FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL;

AND (3) DISMISSING

COMPLAINT

vs.

JENNIFER BENNETTE,

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 3:09-cv-02309-L-RBB Document 4 Filed 10/22/09 Page 1 of 3
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 - 09cv2309

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 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. at 32-33. In addition, cases which “merely repeat[]

pending or previously alleged claims” may be dismissed as frivolous. Cato 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.) The complaint is insufficient to state a claim. In the complaint,

devoid of any headings or paragraphs, Plaintiff offers a stream-of-consciousness account of

fantastic and fanciful criminal activity. These allegations are similar to the allegations in

the previously-dismissed cases, Grace L. Sandoval v. Rogelio Pina, case no. 08cv1297-

L(LSP), Grace L. Sandoval v. Leonard Fink, case no.08cv1869-L(NLS), Grace L. Sandoval

v. Interim Health Care, case no. 09cv1507-L(POR), and Grace L. Sandoval v. Mercury

Insurance, case no. 09cv2217-L(JMA).

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

example of Plaintiff’s “fanciful” allegations is that 

Jennifer Bennette is a security guard employed at Saint Vincent de Paul . . .. 

. . . Jennifer Bennette forced sharps, needles etc. with harmful substance in

Case 3:09-cv-02309-L-RBB Document 4 Filed 10/22/09 Page 2 of 3
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 - 09cv2309

m[y] human esophagus to cause injury and death. Jennifer Bennette also said

to me . . ., “Welcome to the ball” and forced sharp, needle etc. with harmful

substance in m[y] neck, near esophagus, etc. to start a ball or to swell as

Jennifer Bennette mother, an illegal from Mexicali, Mexico named Mary

Reyes . . ., also has from prostitution, dancing nude illegally, forcing extassy

[sic] in the human mouth of males, Americans, criminals, etc in Brawley,

California. Mary Reyes has carried many children born premature with the

drug Provera illegally in Brawley, California as planned as planned with

[many individuals] involved in polygamy, welfare fraud, etc. with Patrick J.

Clark and gay mate O.J. Simpson, etc. 

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. 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 22, 2009

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

Case 3:09-cv-02309-L-RBB Document 4 Filed 10/22/09 Page 3 of 3