Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00877/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00877-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 48:1985 Conspiracy/Deprivation Civil Rights

---

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

Plaintiff does not cite or mention any law in the Complaint. However, Plaintiff characterizes 1

this action as comprising law enforcement misconduct, civil rights violation, derilication of duty, and

elder abuse.

- 1 - 11cv0877-IEG (POR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NANCY J. GRAHAM,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 11-CV-0877 - IEG (POR)

ORDER:

(1) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO PROCEED IN

FORMA PAUPERIS;

(2) SUA SPONTE DISMISSING

COMPLAINT;

(3) DENYING AS MOOT

PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL.

vs.

DEPUTY EDWARD MACCONOGHY;

SHERIFF WILLIAM GORE; and SGT.

DAVE PASEMAN,

Defendants.

Plaintiff commenced this action on April 25, 2011, apparently alleging her civil rights were

violated. [Doc. No. 1.] Together with her Complaint, Plaintiff submitted a Motion to Proceed In 1

Forma Pauperis and a Request for Appointment of Counsel. Having considered Plaintiff’s

arguments, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis, but DISMISSES

WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s Complaint. Accordingly, the Court DENIES AS MOOT

Plaintiff’s Request for Appointment of Counsel.

Case 3:11-cv-00877-IEG-POR Document 4 Filed 05/19/11 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 - 11cv0877-IEG (POR)

DISCUSSION

I. MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

All parties instituting any civil action, suit, or proceeding in a district court, except an

application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of $350. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a).

However, an action may proceed despite failure to pay the filing fee if the party is granted an in

forma pauperis (“IFP”) status. See Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). The

Court may grant IFP status to any party who demonstrates that he or she is unable to pay such fees

or give security therefor. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

In the present case, having reviewed Plaintiff’s motion and declaration in support of

motion, the Court finds that Plaintiff has made a sufficient showing of inability to pay the required

filing fees. See Rodriguez, 169 F.3d at 1177. Accordingly, good cause appearing, the Court

GRANTS Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

II. INITIAL SCREENING PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)

After granting IFP status, the Court must dismiss the case if the case “fails to state a claim

on which relief may be granted” or is “ frivolous.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see also Lopez v.

Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (noting that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) “not

only permits but requires” the court to sua sponte dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint that fails

to state a claim). A complaint is frivolous “where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in

fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989) (superseded on other grounds as stated in

Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126 (9th Cir. 2000)). Where a complaint fails to state “any

constitutional or statutory right that was violated, nor asserts any basis for federal subject matter

jurisdiction,” there is no “arguable basis in law” under Neitzke and the court on its own initiative

may decline to permit the plaintiff to proceed and dismiss the complaint under Section 1915. Cato

v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995).

As currently pleaded, Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a cognizable claim and is frivolous

to the extent it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact. Plaintiff alleges that Sheriff Gore has not

taken the necessary steps to prevent Deputy MacConoghy from stalking her. See Compl. 

However, she fails to assert any basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction, fails to identify any

Case 3:11-cv-00877-IEG-POR Document 4 Filed 05/19/11 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 - 11cv0877-IEG (POR)

constitutional or statutory rights that Defendants violated, and fails to allege any facts establishing

a cause of action against Defendants.

Even affording Plaintiff’s complaint the special consideration given to pro se claimants, her

allegations fail to present a cognizable legal theory or facts sufficient to support a cognizable legal

theory against Defendant. Although the Court must assume Plaintiff can prove the facts she

alleges in her complaint, the Court may not “supply essential 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).

CONCLUSION

 Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed in Forma

Pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), but DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s

complaint as frivolous and for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 

Accordingly, the Court DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiff’s Request for Appointment of Counsel.

Plaintiff is GRANTED thirty (30) days from the date this Order is filed to file a First

Amended Complaint addressing the deficiencies of the pleading set forth above. Plaintiff is

cautioned her First Amended Complaint must be complete in itself, without relying on references

to the original Complaint. Plaintiff is further cautioned any defendant not named or claim not realleged will be considered waived. See King v. Attiyeh, 814 F.3d 1172, 1177-79 (9th Cir. 1996).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 19, 2011

IRMA E. GONZALEZ, Chief Judge

United States District Court

Case 3:11-cv-00877-IEG-POR Document 4 Filed 05/19/11 Page 3 of 3