Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01306/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01306-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

LUCINA B. SAMUELSON, et al.,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 13cv1306-LAB (WVG)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS;

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL;

AND

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

vs.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

Defendant.

On June 5, 2013, Plaintiffs Lucina B. Samuelson and David Franklin Taylor filed their

complaint along with a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) by Samuelson only, and

a motion for appointment of counsel also by Samuelson only.

The motion to proceed IFP is largely nonsensical. Samuelson used a form application,

but her answers to the questions are unresponsive. For example, she said she owns real

estate or other valuable property, and when asked to describe it and state its value, wrote

“Bigger than life according to Judge Utma and Phoenix Arizona Removal.” She didn’t sign

the application as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a); instead, the signature line appears to

say “Phoenix Arizona Removal Trustee.” She does, however, say she received income from

a wide variety of sources, that she expects to receive more money soon, and that she owns

property and other valuable assets, which she did not list because, she said, there wasn’t

- 1 - 13cv1306

Case 3:13-cv-01306-LAB-WVG Document 4 Filed 06/07/13 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

enough space on the form. Taylor didn’t file an IFP motion, and no fee has been paid. See

Gulbransen v. Far Northern Regional Center, 2011 WL 2462994 (E.D.Cal., June 17, 2011)

(citing 28 U.S.C. § 1915) (“[E]ach plaintiff must file their own separate application to proceed

in forma pauperis, since filing fees must be paid unless each plaintiff applies for and is

granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis.”); Anderson v. California, 2010 WL 4316996 at

*1 (S.D.Cal., Oct. 27, 2010) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1915) (“[A]lthough only one filing fee needs

to be paid per case, if multiple plaintiffs seek to proceed in forma pauperis, each plaintiff

must qualify for IFP status.”) 

The complaint falls far short of complying with this Court’s legibility requirements. See

Civil Local Rule 5.1. It also includes no short and plain statement of the grounds for the

Court’s jurisdiction, what her claim is, or a demand for relief as required by Fed. R. Civ. P.

8(a). It appears to be an unrelated series of thoughts about some unspecified grievances by

Samuelson concerning earlier criminal proceedings and financial losses she suffered. It is

signed twice by her but not signed by her co-Plaintiff David Francis Taylor, in violation of

Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a).

For these reasons, the motion to proceed IFP is DENIED, and the complaint is

DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The motion for appointment of counsel is no more

lucid than either of the other two filings, but in any case the issue is moot at this point, and

the motion is therefore DENIED. If Plaintiffs think they can successfully amend their

complaint, they must first either 1) both file motions to proceed IFP, or 2) pay the required

filing fee. After that, they may file an amended complaint, which must be filed no later than

June 24, 2013. If they do not do these things within the time permitted, this action will be

dismissed without leave to amend. All pleadings must be signed, and must also comply with

this Court’s legibility requirements or they will be rejected for filing or stricken.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 6, 2013

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

- 2 - 13cv1306

Case 3:13-cv-01306-LAB-WVG Document 4 Filed 06/07/13 Page 2 of 2