Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01077/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01077-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 375
Nature of Suit: False Claims Act
Cause of Action: 31:3729 False Claims Act - Liability

---

– 1 –

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

ARMANDO R. LOPEZ,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 19-cv-1077-BAS-MSB

ORDER

(1) DENYING MOTION FOR 

LEAVE TO PROCEED IN 

FORMA PAUPERIS; (2) DISMISSING CASE 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE; (3) DENYING MOTION FOR 

APPOINTMENT OF 

COUNSEL.

[ECF Nos. 2, 3]

v.

U.S. PROBATION DEPARTMENT 

and YMELD VALENZUELA,

Defendants.

Plaintiff Armando R. Lopez filed a complaint against the United States 

Probation Department and Ymeld Valenzuela. (ECF No. 1.) Under the section of 

the complaint titled “statement of claim,” Plaintiff only states: “Attached copies of 

proof legal, medical, business documents. Federal probation officer falsely 

submitted documents and violated 31 U.S.C. § 3730. Civil actions for false claims 

defrauding the government.” (Id. at 2.) Along with his compliant, Plaintiff filed a 

motion for appointment of counsel, (ECF No. 2), and a motion for leave to proceed 

in forma pauperis (“IFP”), (ECF No. 3). Attached to the IFP motion are various 

medical documents which indicate Plaintiff underwent shoulder surgery and received

physical therapy for his shoulder. (ECF No. 3, at 6–19, 22–23.) Plaintiff also 

Case 3:19-cv-01077-BAS-MSB Document 4 Filed 06/27/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
– 2 –

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

attached a letter from the County of San Diego Citizens’ Law Enforcement Review 

Board, which indicates Plaintiff submitted a complaint. (Id. at 20.) The final 

attached document is a typed bullet point list where Plaintiff appears to make various 

vague allegations against someone named Imelda Valenzuela. (Id. at 25.)1

I. MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, a litigant who because of indigency is unable to pay 

the required fees or security to commence a legal action may petition the court to 

proceed without making such payment. 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 wellsettled that a party need not be completely destitute to proceed IFP. 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). Finally, 

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).

 1 Imelda Valenzuela is only referenced in these bullet point accusations, not in the complaint, and 

the Court assumes Plaintiff intended to name Imelda Valenzuela as a Defendant but he wrote 

“Ymeld Valenzuela” on the caption of his complaint. (ECF No. 1, at 1.) The complaint contains 

no further information about this Defendant.

Case 3:19-cv-01077-BAS-MSB Document 4 Filed 06/27/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
– 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

Here, Plaintiff states he is unemployed and receives a total of $189/month 

through public assistance. Plaintiff has no money in any bank accounts and no assets. 

Plaintiff has a four-year-old daughter who relies on him for support. Yet Plaintiff 

states his only monthly expenses are $80 in transportation costs. The Court finds 

that Plaintiff’s financial status is implausible. In order to support a young daughter, 

Plaintiff must spend more than $80 per month or must be receiving support from a 

friend or family member. It is implausible that Plaintiff spends $0 on rent, food, and 

clothing for himself and his daughter, and has no expenses beyond transportation. 

The Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s IFP Motion. While the 

Court believes Plaintiff likely can prove he qualifies to proceed IFP, the Court cannot 

make this determination until it receives an accurate and specific description of 

Plaintiff’s income, support, and expenses. Plaintiff may re-file a new IFP motion.

II. FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 8

The district court may dismiss a complaint for failure to comply with Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 8 if the complaint fails to provide the defendant fair notice 

of the wrongs allegedly committed. Rule 8 requires that each pleading include a 

“short and plain statement of the claim,” and that “each allegation must be simple, 

concise, and direct.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) & (d)(1). Detailed factual allegations 

are not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, 

supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 

U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 554, 555 (2007)). 

The Court finds that Plaintiff’s complaint must be dismissed for failure to 

comply with Rule 8. Plaintiff’s short and conclusory allegation that a probation 

officer submitted false documents, along with various attached exhibits, are 

insufficient to state a claim. The civil cover sheet filed with the complaint provides 

little help, as Plaintiff checked the box indicating he is bringing a claim under the 

Case 3:19-cv-01077-BAS-MSB Document 4 Filed 06/27/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
– 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

False Claims Act, but appeared to cross off the check as well. (ECF No. 1-1.)2 

Plaintiff describes his case as: “Abuse of process, Malicious prosecution.” (Id.) It 

is entirely unclear what Plaintiff is alleging against which Defendant, what happened 

to him, and what causes of action he is bringing.

For this reason, the Court dismisses Plaintiff’s complaint but gives Plaintiff an 

opportunity to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff’s amended complaint must 

include a “short and plain statement” of each of his claims and the allegations against 

each Defendant. Plaintiff is to clearly explain “what circumstances were supposed 

to have given rise to the various causes of action.” See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 

1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 1996). Plaintiff may file an amended complaint on or before 

August 8, 2019.

III. MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

“[T]here is no absolute right to counsel in civil proceedings.” Hedges v. 

Resolution Tr. Corp. (In re Hedges), 32 F.3d 1360, 1363 (9th Cir. 1994). Thus, 

federal courts do not have the authority “to make coercive appointments of counsel.” 

Mallard v. U.S. District Court, 490 U.S. 296, 310 (1989); see also United States v. 

$292,888.04 in U.S. Currency, 54 F.3d 564, 569 (9th Cir. 1995). 

Districts courts have discretion, however, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) 

to “request” that an attorney represent indigent civil litigants upon a showing of 

“exceptional circumstances.” See Agyeman v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 

1103 (9th Cir. 2004); accord Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997). 

“A finding of the exceptional circumstances of the plaintiff seeking assistance 

requires at least an evaluation of the likelihood of the plaintiff’s success on the merits 

and an evaluation of the plaintiff’s ability to articulate his claims ‘in light of the 

 2 Plaintiff’s entire case has been sealed because he appears to allege a claim under the False Claims 

Act. See 31 U.S.C.§ 3730(b)(2). If and when Plaintiff files an amended complaint, the Court will 

determine if Plaintiff properly brings claims under the False Claims Act, and if not, the Court will 

unseal the case.

Case 3:19-cv-01077-BAS-MSB Document 4 Filed 06/27/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
– 5 –

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

complexity of the legal issues involved.’” Agyeman, 390 F.3d at 1103 (quoting 

Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986)); see also Terrell v. 

Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991).

Here, Plaintiff states he is unable to pay for counsel due to health reasons. 

(ECF No. 2, at 3.) Having reviewed Plaintiff’s request, the Court concludes the 

circumstances fail to demonstrate “exceptional circumstances” warranting the 

appointment of counsel at this time. First, the case is still in the very early stages and 

Plaintiff’s success on the merits is unclear. As noted above, the Court cannot discern 

what Plaintiff’s causes of action are, let alone his ability to prove the causes of action. 

And second, because Plaintiff is granted leave to amend his complaint, his ability to 

articulate his claims is also unclear at this time. The Court DENIES WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s Motion.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court:

(1)DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to 

Proceed in Forma Pauperis, (ECF No 3);

(2)DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment 

of Counsel, (ECF No 2);

(3)DISMISSES Plaintiff’s complaint for failure to comply with Rule 8; and

(4)GRANTS Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint on or before 

August 8, 2019. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint by this date, 

his case may be dismissed for failure to prosecute.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 27, 2019

Case 3:19-cv-01077-BAS-MSB Document 4 Filed 06/27/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5