Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00172/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00172-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: Americans with Disabilities 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JERRY B. RALLS,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 12-CV-172 JLS (NLS)

ORDER: (1) GRANTING MOTION

TO PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS; AND (2) DISMISSING

COMPLAINT

vs.

MEDICAL STAFF,

Defendant.

Plaintiff Jerry B. Ralls, proceeding pro se, has filed a complaint against “Medical Staff.” 

(Compl., ECF No. 1.) Upon reviewing the Complaint and attached civil cover sheet, it appears

Plaintiff seeks an injunction of sorts against the federal health care system at large. (Id. at 1-2.) 

Plaintiff has also submitted an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1915(a). (IFP Mot., ECF No. 2.) 

MOTION TO PROCEED IFP

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). Here, Plaintiff states he is unemployed, has one

dollar in his bank account, and owns no assets of value. (IFP Mot. at 2.) Apparently, his only

- 1 - 12cv172

Case 3:12-cv-00172-JLS-NLS Document 3 Filed 05/23/12 Page 1 of 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

source of income is $934 per month in the form of social security disability payments. (Id.) Based

on the information provided, the Court finds that Plaintiff is unable to pay the required filing fee. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to proceed IFP is GRANTED.

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

Notwithstanding IFP status, the Court must subject each civil action commenced pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) to mandatory screening and shall order the sua sponte dismissal of any case

it finds “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 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 IFP

complaint that fails to state a claim).

Before its amendment by the PLRA, former 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) permitted sua sponte

dismissal of only frivolous and malicious claims. Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1130. However, as

amended, 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

U.S. Marshal to effect service pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(c)(3). See id. at

1127; 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); see also Andrews v. King, 398

F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2005); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998)

(noting that § 1915(e)(2) “parallels the language of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)”). In

addition, the Court has a duty to liberally construe a pro se plaintiff’s pleadings, see

Karim-Panahi v. L.A. Police Dep’t, 839 F.2d 621, 623 (9th Cir. 1988), which is “particularly

important in civil rights cases,” Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1261 (9th Cir. 1992). In giving

liberal interpretation to a pro se litigant’s complaint, however, 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).

- 2 - 12cv172

Case 3:12-cv-00172-JLS-NLS Document 3 Filed 05/23/12 Page 2 of 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

Plaintiff’s sparse allegations total one paragraph. The basis for Plaintiff’s claim is

apparently “medical staff not following Drs. (sic) orders involving life sustaining medicines and

procedures.” (Compl. 1.) In anticipation of needing to visit his mother in the future if she

becomes ill, Plaintiff seeks a Court Order “to follow Dr. (sic) orders because without daily

medication I will die and that would violate my God given right to life.” (Id.) Plaintiff does not

refer to a specific statute, merely listing the cause of action as “constitutional life & liberty” on the

civil cover sheet attached to the Complaint. (Compl. 2.) Construing his pro se pleading liberally,

the Court finds it comes closest to alleging a civil rights claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, perhaps

asserting a violation of Plaintiff’s due process right to life, liberty, and property under the Fifth

and Fourteenth Amendments.

42 U.S.C. § 1983 provides a cause of action for the “deprivation of any rights, privileges,

or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws” of the United States. Section 1983 is not

itself a source of substantive rights, but merely provides a method for vindicating federal rights

elsewhere conferred. See Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 393-94 (1989). To state a claim

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Plaintiff must allege that: (1) that conduct he complains of violated a right

secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States; and (2) the conduct he complains of was

committed by a person acting under color of state law. Humphries v. County of Los Angeles, 554

F.3d 1170, 1184 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988)).

From the allegations contained in the Complaint, the Court must find Plaintiff has failed to

assert a cognizable legal theory that would entitle him to relief under § 1983, or any other

conceivably applicable statute. The cursory and nonsensical nature of Plaintiff’s statements render

it impossible for the Court to reasonably infer what conduct deprived Plaintiff of what right,

privilege, or immunity protected by the Constitution. Further, there is no indication at all that the

conduct he complains of was committed by a person or persons acting under color of state law

who may properly be sued under § 1983, or that the relief he seeks may be granted by the Court. In

fact, Plaintiff has failed to satisfy any of the federal pleading requirements, which are: (1) “a short

and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction”; (2) a short and plain statement of

the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief”; and (3) “a demand for the relief sought.” 

- 3 - 12cv172

Case 3:12-cv-00172-JLS-NLS Document 3 Filed 05/23/12 Page 3 of 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

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). The Complaint contains no statement of jurisdiction of any kind, states

almost no factual allegations, does not specifically identify any parties or claims, and its demand

for a “Judges (sic) Order” is so vague as to prevent the Court from possibly fashioning a remedy

to afford relief. 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff’s motion to proceed IFP is GRANTED, but

Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failing to state a claim upon

which relief may be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The Court will allow Plaintiff

an opportunity to amend his Complaint to correct all of the deficiencies of pleading identified in

this Order. If he so chooses, Plaintiff may file an amended complaint within 45 days of the date

this Order is electronically docketed. Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint must be complete in itself

without reference to the previous pleading. See Local Civil Rule 15.1. To assist him in this task,

the Clerk SHALL PROVIDE Plaintiff with a court-approved 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Form Complaint. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 23, 2012

Honorable Janis L. Sammartino

United States District Judge

- 4 - 12cv172

Case 3:12-cv-00172-JLS-NLS Document 3 Filed 05/23/12 Page 4 of 4