Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-02903/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-02903-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 350
Nature of Suit: Motor Vehicle 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 - 09cv2903

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GRACE L. SANDOVAL,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 09 CV 2903 JM (POR)

ORDER DISMISSING

COMPLAINT WITHOUT

PREJUDICE; DENYING MOTION

TO PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS; DENYING MOTION

FOR APPOINTMENT OF

COUNSEL

Doc. Nos. 2, 3

vs.

BILL COLEMAN,

Defendant.

Over the past several years, Plaintiff Grace L. Sandoval has filed in excess of 90 separate

actions in this district. (See 08cv1297, 08cv1621, 08cv1622, 08cv1623, 08cv1848, 08cv1849,

08cv1853, 98cv1854, 08cv1868, 08cv1869, 08cv1870, 08cv1944, 08cv2004, 08cv2005, 08cv2057,

08cv2104, 08cv2105, 08cv2151, 09cv0269, 09cv0422, 09cv423, 09cv0424, 09cv0437, 09cv0438,

09cv0441, 09cv0454, 09cv0455, 09cv0456, 09cv0474, 09cv0475, 09cv0476, 09cv0477, 09cv0478,

09cv0491, 09cv0492, 09cv0493, 09cv0494, 09cv0495, 09cv582, 09cv0583, 09cv585, 09cv586,

09cv0588, 09cv0600, 09cv0642, 09cv1232, 09cv1506, 09cv1506, 09cv1507, 09cv1508, 09cv1514,

09cv1515, 09cv1520, 09cv1524, 09cv1526, 09cv1849, 09cv2122, 09cv2141, 09cv2148, 09cv2204,

09cv2205, 09cv2206, 09cv2217, 09cv2218, 09cv2217, 09cv2218, 09cv2244, 09cv2245, 09cv2250,

09cv2251, 09cv2252, 09cv2304, 09cv2305, 09cv2306, 09cv2307, 09cv2308, 09cv2309, 09cv2310,

09cv2311, 09cv2312, 09cv2313, 09cv2450, 09cv2452, 09cv2453, 09cv2462,09cv2463, 09cv2464,

Case 3:09-cv-02903-JM-POR Document 5 Filed 01/07/10 Page 1 of 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

- 2 - 09cv2903

09cv2465, 09cv2466, 09cv2467, 09cv2526, 09cv2528). Each action was brought in propria persona

and in forma pauperis. Each appears to have been dismissed as frivolous or for failure to state a

claim. The present complaint fairs no better. 

Without identifying the basis for the court’s subject matter jurisdiction, the complaint sets forth

a rambling narrative of charges and conclusions concerning, for example, allegations that Defendant

planned to vandalize Plaintiff’s car, to “illegally” drive it to “various counties in California,” and “to

cause pile up of cars on [the] freeway.” (Doc. No. 1, Complaint). As the present complaint, like the

scores of previously filed complaints, fails to identify any basis for federal jurisdiction, or to set forth

a coherent statement of her claims, the court dismisses the complaint at bar as frivolous, for failure

to state a claim, and for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

The Clerk of Court is instructed to dismiss the action without prejudice. Until Plaintiff pays

the filing fee or demonstrates an imminent danger of serious physical injury, the Clerk of Court is

instructed to reject for filing any further document received from Plaintiff in this case. The court also

denies Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and for appointment of counsel as moot. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 7, 2010

 Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller

 United States District Judge

cc: All parties

Case 3:09-cv-02903-JM-POR Document 5 Filed 01/07/10 Page 2 of 2