Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01798/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01798-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331cv Fed. Question: Other Civil Rights

---

1

17cv1798-LAB (JLB)

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

ALONZO SPENCER,

Plaintiff,

v.

PIER JOHANSON,

Defendant.

Case No.: 17cv1798-LAB (JLB)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS;

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL; 

AND

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiff Alonzo Spencer, proceeding pro se, filed his complaint in this case along 

with a motion to proceed in forma pauperis and a motion for appointment of counsel. 

The IFP motion shows Spencer lacks the funds to pay the filing fee, and the motion is 

GRANTED. The motion for appointment of counsel, however, is incomplete. Spencer 

used a form to prepare this motion. In the area where he was to have described his efforts 

to find an attorney to represent him, Spencer has said nothing. 

A complaint filed by any person seeking to proceed IFP 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 from a defendant immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(2)(B).

Case 3:17-cv-01798-LAB-JLB Document 4 Filed 09/12/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

17cv1798-LAB (JLB)

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

Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), every complaint filed in federal court must contain a 

short and plain statement of the grounds for the Court’s jurisdiction, and a short and plain 

statement of the claim showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. The complaint, 

which is illegible in places, alleges that Spencer worked for Falkenburg/Gilliam, Inc. 

Later Pier Johanson was hired. Spencer alleges that Johanson harassed him on the job. 

The complaint also says Johanson “took the Plaintiff to his Kang[a]roo Court” after 

which Spencer was fired. Spencer is suing Johanson only, not Falkenburg/Gilliam or 

anyone else. A review of state court records shows that spencer sued Johanson in 2009 

for harassment, and Falkenberg/Gilliam Associates in 2013 for wrongful termination. 1

Besides failing to state a claim, the complaint identifies no basis for the Court’s 

exercise of jurisdiction in this case. Spencer’s alleged harassment by a co-worker might 

be actionable in state court, but it is not actionable here. Furthermore, it appears Spencer 

already brought his claims in state court, which deprives this Court of jurisdiction to hear 

them, under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. See Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1154–56 (9th

Cir. 2003). 

Even if Spencer had shown why counsel could or should be appointed, he is not 

bringing any claims over which the Court can exercise jurisdiction. The complaint is 

DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to state a claim, and for failure to 

invoke the Court’s jurisdiction. The motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED AS 

MOOT.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 11, 2017

 

1 Spencer’s spelling of these parties’ names has been inconsistent, but the two state law cases appear to 

involve the exact same people. In the 2009 state court proceeding, the defendant’s name is spelled both 

as “Per Johnson” and “Pierce Johnson”. 

Case 3:17-cv-01798-LAB-JLB Document 4 Filed 09/12/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2