Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00630/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00630-0/pdf.json

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

---

1

17-CV-630-JLS (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

RICH RYAN GARCIA,

Plaintiff,

v.

ATTORNEY JULIE COBALT; AMY 

OLSEN; JOHN GOING,

Defendants.

Case No.: 17-CV-630-JLS (JLB)

ORDER:

(1) GRANTING MOTION TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

AND DISMISSING WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S 

COMPLAINT; AND

(2) DENYING MOTION TO 

APPOINT COUNSEL

(ECF Nos. 2, 3)

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Rich Ryan Garcia’s Motion to Proceed In 

Forma Pauperis (“IFP”). (“IFP Mot.,” ECF No. 2.) Also before the Court is Plaintiff’s 

Motion to Appoint Counsel. (“Counsel Mot.,” ECF No. 3.)

IFP MOTION

All parties instituting any civil action, suit, or proceeding in a district court of the 

United States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of 

$400. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed despite a plaintiff’s failure to prepay 

the entire fee only if he is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

Case 3:17-cv-00630-JLS-JLB Document 4 Filed 06/20/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
2

17-CV-630-JLS (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

§ 1915(a). See Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). A federal court 

may authorize the commencement of an action without the prepayment of fees if the party 

submits an affidavit, including a statement of assets, showing that he is unable to pay the 

required filing fee. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

In the present case, Plaintiff has submitted an affidavit indicating that he has no 

source of income, no savings, and no assets. (See generally IFP Mot.) Plaintiff further 

claims he has “just been released from prison” and is in a transitional housing program. 

(Id. at 2.) Given the foregoing, the Court concludes that Plaintiff’s application demonstrates

he is unable to pay the requisite fees and costs. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS

Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP.

Screening Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) & 1915A(b)

The Court must screen every civil action brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) 

and dismiss any case it finds “frivolous or malicious,” “fails to state a claim on which relief 

may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from relief.” 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see also Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2001) 

(“[T]he provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) are not limited to prisoners.”); 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 a district court to dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint 

that fails to state a claim”).

As amended by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) 

mandates that the court reviewing an action filed pursuant to the IFP provisions of § 1915 

make and rule on its own motion to dismiss before directing the Marshal to effect service 

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(c)(3). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3); Navarette 

v. Pioneer Med. Ctr., No. 12-cv-0629-WQH (DHB), 2013 WL 139925, at *1 (S.D. Cal. 

Jan. 9, 2013).

All complaints must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that 

the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not 

required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 

Case 3:17-cv-00630-JLS-JLB Document 4 Filed 06/20/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
3

17-CV-630-JLS (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

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)). “[D]etermining whether a complaint 

states a plausible claim is context-specific, requiring the reviewing court to draw on its 

experience and common sense.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 663–64 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 

556). 

“When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their 

veracity, and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement of relief.”

Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679. “[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); see 

also Andrews v. King, 393 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2005); Barren v. Harrington, 152 

F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (“The language of § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) parallels the 

language of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).”).

“While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not.” Hoagland 

v. Astrue, No. 1:12-cv-00973-SMS, 2012 WL 2521753, at *3 (E.D. Cal. June 28, 2012) 

(citing Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678). Courts cannot accept legal conclusions set forth in a 

complaint if the plaintiff has not supported her contentions with facts. Id. (citing Iqbal, 556 

U.S. at 679).

In his Complaint (“Compl.”), Plaintiff alleges that he was going to prosecute Olson 

and Going, who were tenants of “our La Jolla Residence” at “5436 Taft Ave.” (Compl. 2.) 

But he claims that their attorney, Cobalt, “coached and assisted them to falsify documents 

and records [and] gave false statements so that [he] would be held on Fed Hold and [thus] 

unable to attend [a] prior court hearing against Olson / [testify] to [the] judge.” (Id.) He 

also claims that Defendants “received mail from Escondido AAA that was for [Plaintiff 

and] opened [his] mail and saw [a] complaint from Escondido AAA and used this 

information to falsify state to assist U.S. Attorney Jamie Perks.” (Id.) However, Plaintiff 

does not identify what documents Defendants allegedly falsified or, in one instance, what 

they falsely stated to cause law enforcement to prevent him from testifying at a court 

Case 3:17-cv-00630-JLS-JLB Document 4 Filed 06/20/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
4

17-CV-630-JLS (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

hearing. Plaintiff also states that Defendants Olson and Going “threatened our witnesses 

who gave affidavits . . . stating if they didn’t remove affidavits they would be fired [from 

their jobs at Albertson’s]!” (Id.) But Plaintiff fails to identify a viable cause of action that 

would support relief based on these allegations. He asks the Court to “prosecute” 

Defendants for falsifying documents and for opening mail, but Plaintiff cannot personally 

seek criminal penalties against these Defendants. And Plaintiff provides no civil causes of 

action tethered to his allegations. Moreover, it is not clear that the Court would have 

jurisdiction over what appear to be claims in an ongoing state law case.

The Court therefore finds that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for relief, as 

required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), and DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE 

Plaintiff’s Complaint. Because Plaintiff fails to state a cognizable claim for relief, the Court 

DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel (ECF No. 3).

See, e.g., Agyeman v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004) (noting that, 

among other things, a court may appoint counsel after “an evaluation of the likelihood of 

the plaintiff’s success on the merits”).

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the Court: 

1. GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP pursuant to § 1915(a), (ECF No. 2);

2. DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s Complaint, (ECF No. 1).

Plaintiff MAY FILE an amended complaint within thirty (30) days of the date on which 

this Order is electronically docketed. Should Plaintiff fail to file an amended complaint

within the time provided, the Court will enter a final order dismissing this civil action with 

prejudice; and

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:17-cv-00630-JLS-JLB Document 4 Filed 06/20/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
5

17-CV-630-JLS (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

3. DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel, 

(ECF No. 3).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 20, 2017

Case 3:17-cv-00630-JLS-JLB Document 4 Filed 06/20/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5