Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00862/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00862-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
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 

..... .. ................_A~_ 

Sy _____~.:-;·rp:;.,. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

PAMELA STICKLER, CASE NO. 12-cv-862 - BEN (WVG) 

Plaintiff, ORDER: 

vs. (1) GRANTING REQUEST TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS, 

[Doc. No.2]; 

(2) SUA SPONTE DISMISSING 

SAN DIEGO COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLAINT; and 

DISTRICT, 

(3) DENYING AS MOOT MOTION TO 

Defendant. APPOINT COUNSEL, [Doc. No.3]. 

Plaintiff Pamela Strickler, proceeding pro se, has filed a complaint alleging that an individual 

in a California State Police uniform threatened her with arrest for allegedly trespassing at the Chabad. 

She seeks a restraining order against Defendant San Diego Community College District. Plaintiffhas 

not paid the $350 civil filing fee required to commence this action, but has filed a motion to proceed 

in forma pauperis. [Doc. No.2.] Plaintiff also filed a motion to appoint counsel. [Doc. No.3.] For 

the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS the motion to proceed in forma pauperis, sua sponte 

screens and DISMISSES the complaint, and DENIES AS MOOT the motion to appoint counsel. 

DISCUSSION 

I. Motion to proceed in forma pauperis 

Parties instituting any civil action in a district court ofthe United States, except an application 

for a writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of$350. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may 

- 1 - 12cv862 

Case 3:12-cv-00862-BEN-WVG Document 4 Filed 04/18/12 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 

· '-~ 

proceed despite a plaintiffs failure to prepay the entire fee only if the plaintiff is granted leave to 

proceed informa pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 

1177 (9th Cir. 1999). Having reviewed Plaintiffs declaration in support of her motion to proceed in 

forma pauperis, the Court finds it sufficient to show that she is unable to pay the fees or post securities 

required to maintain this action. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs motion to proceed in 

forma pauperis pursuantto 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 

II. Sua sponte screening 

An in forma pauperis complaint is subject to mandatory screening. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915( e )(2)(B), notwithstanding any filing fee, the Court must dismiss any complaint if at any time 

the Court determines that it 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." The sua 

sponte screening is mandatory. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc); 

see also Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 200 I) (per curiam) ("[TJhe provisions of 28 

U.S.c. § 1915(e)(2)(B) are not limited to prisoners." (citation omitted». 

In this case, Plaintiffs one-page complaint fails to state any constitutional or statutory ground 

for relief, nor does it allege any basis for this Court's jurisdiction. Accordingly, the complaint is 

hereby DISMISSED because it fails to allege sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a 

plausible claim to relief. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009); see also Barren v. 

Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order) ("The language of § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) 

parallels the language of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)."). 

CONCLUSION 

Plaintiffs motion to proceed informa pauperis is GRANTED. Plaintiffs complaint is hereby 

DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND for failure to state a claim. IfPlaintiff wishes to amend 

her complaint, she should file the amended complaint no later than May 4, 2012. In light of the 

dismissal, Plaintiffs motion to appoint counsel is DENIED 

IT IS SJrERED. 

Date: APrijl1=-,2012 

- 2 - 12cv862 

Case 3:12-cv-00862-BEN-WVG Document 4 Filed 04/18/12 Page 2 of 2