Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-00493/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-00493-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other 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 - 09cv0493

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GRACE L. SANDOVAL,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 09 CV 0493 JM (LSP)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS;

DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL;

DISMISSING CASE WITH LEAVE

TO AMEND

vs.

SUSAN GOLDING,

Defendant.

Plaintiff Grace L. Sandoval, proceeding pro se, has submitted a complaint pursuant to 18

U.S.C. § 1962. (Doc. No. 1.) Along with her complaint, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma

Pauperis (“IFP”) (Doc. No. 2), a Request for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. No. 3), and a RICO Case

Statement (Doc. No. 4).

Motion to Proceed IFP

Any party instituting a civil action, suit, or proceeding in a United States District Court must

pay a filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed despite a plaintiff’s failure to

prepay the fee only if the plaintiff is granted leave to proceed IFP under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See

Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). Plaintiff’s declaration shows she has

insufficient and assets to pay the filing fee. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to proceed IFP (Doc. No.

2) is GRANTED.

//

Case 3:09-cv-00493-JM-LSP Document 5 Filed 03/17/09 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 - 09cv0493

Sua Sponte Review of the Complaint

The court is obligated to review a complaint filed IFP and must dismiss if the action is

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 such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see also Calhoun v.

Stahl, 254 F.3d 845 (9th Cir. 2001). “[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).

Plaintiff attempts to raise claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations

Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. § 1962(a), (b), (c) and/or (d). (See Complaint, Doc. No. 1, Civil Cover

Sheet.) Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c), “[a]ny person injured in his business or property by reason

of a violation of section 1962 of this chapter may sue therefor in any appropriate United States district

court . . ..” Neither the complaint, which consists solely of a caption page, nor the RICO Case

Statement filed therewith, are sufficient to state a claim. In a rambling statement, interspersed within

the RICO Case Statement form headings, Plaintiff offers a stream-of-consciousness account of over

twenty-five years of purported criminal activity. Plaintiff alleges primarily drug smuggling and

assault, personal injuries, rape, kidnaping, and burglary of Plaintiff and numerous other individuals

by Defendant, “illegals from Mexico,” and other persons whose connection with Defendant is unclear.

“A civil RICO claim requires allegations of the conduct of an enterprise through a pattern of

racketeering activity that proximately caused injury to the plaintiff.” Swartz v. KPMG LLP, 476 F.3d

756, 760-61 (9th Cir. 2007). Specifically, the “elements of a civil RICO claim are as follows: (1)

conduct (2) of an enterprise (3) through a pattern (4) of racketeering activity (known as predicate acts)

(5) causing injury to plaintiff's business or property.” Living Designs, Inc. v. E.I. Dupont de Nemours

& Co., 431 F.3d 353, 361 (9th Cir. 2005). To establish liability, “one must allege and prove the

existence of two distinct entities: (1) a ‘person’; and (2) an ‘enterprise’ that is not simply the same

‘person’ referred to by a different name.” Id. The allegations in Plaintiff’s complaint do not provide

a basis for an inference that the alleged criminal activity was a part of an enterprise or that Defendant

was engaged in such an enterprise. Not only does Plaintiff fail to state a claim for a civil RICO

violation, she has not set forth a short and plain statement of her claim and thus, fails to satisfy the

Case 3:09-cv-00493-JM-LSP Document 5 Filed 03/17/09 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 - 09cv0493

basic pleading requirements under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a).

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s request to proceed IFP (Doc. No. 2) is GRANTED.

Further, the complaint is DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Plaintiff is granted thirty (30)

days’ leave from the date of entry of this order to file a first amended complaint and RICO Case

Statement. Plaintiff’s amended complaint must be complete in itself without reference to the

superseded pleading. See Civ. L. R. 15.1. Defendants not named and all claims not re-alleged in the

amended complaint will be deemed to have been waived. See King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th

Cir. 1987). If Plaintiff’s amended complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,

it may be dismissed without further leave to amend. Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel

(Doc. No. 3) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE subject to Plaintiff refiling it together with the

amended complaint.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 17, 2009

 Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller

 United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-00493-JM-LSP Document 5 Filed 03/17/09 Page 3 of 3