Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02066/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02066-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 320
Nature of Suit: Assault, Libel, and Slander
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 

13 p;~~ - 3 A;'l vlll i 

tot 

f1 9: 3(10 

. I:": ~. cr:·i};': T . , :-;}. L.r "_.,d,I/"\ 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

CARL A. WASHAM, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

BRANDON EVANS; et aI., 

Defendants. 

CASE NO. I2-CV-2066 BEN (BGS) 

ORDER: 

(1) DISMISSING ACTION 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE 

(2) DENYING AS MOOT MOTION 

TO PROCEED IN FORMA 

PAUPERIS 

(3) DENYING AS MOOT MOTION 

TO APPOINT COUNSEL 

[Docket Nos. 2, 3] 

Pro se Plaintiff Carl A. Washam filed a Complaint against Brandon Evans and Jermone 

Washington. (Docket No.1.) Plaintiff also filed a motion to proceed informa pauperis (Docket No. 

2) and a motion to appoint counsel (Docket No.3). The Court decides the matters on the papers 

submitted. For the reasons outlined below, the Court DISMISSES the action without prejudice and 

DENIES as moot Plaintiffs motion to proceed in forma pauperis and motion to appoint counsel. 

BACKGROUND 

Plaintiff alleges that he was previously a member of 24 Hour Fitness. (Compl. at 1.) 

According to Plaintiff, "someday in June vs. July I entered fourty [sic] three fourty [sic] five Imperial 

Ave. 24 hour fitness and was caught by surprise by Mr. Brandon Evans vs. Mr. Jermone Washington 

which called me to their desk and was lamentnated [sic] with handjestters [sic], and rude threats as 

- 1 - 12-CV-2066 

Case 3:12-cv-02066-BEN-BGS Document 6 Filed 01/03/13 Page 1 of 3
5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

2 

3 

4 

6 

7 

8 

9 

11 

12 

13 

14 

16 

17 

18 

19 

21 

22 

23 

24 

26 

27 

28 

much as accursations [sic] of un-certainty telling me to leave the building with no clarifacation [sic] 

to be known." (Id at 1-2.) Plaintiff alleges that without the use ofthe facilities in 24 Hour Fitness, 

he has gained weight and has suffered from a loss of"good time [ s ]." (/d. at 2.) The Complaint asserts 

claims for defamation/slander and "forcify [sic] discontinueous [sic] ofmembership." On December 

20,2012, Plaintiff filed a "BriefAmended Complaint." The BriefAmended Complaint amended the 

amount of damages sought, but did not amend the facts alleged in the original Complaint. 

DISCUSSION 

I. SUA SPONTE SCREENING AND DISMISSAL 

A complaint filed by any person proceeding, or seeking to proceed, in forma pauperis under 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) is subject to mandatory sua sponte review and dismissal if the complaint is 

frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief 

fromadefendantimmune from suit. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B);Lopezv. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122,1126­

27 (9th Cir. 2000). 

The legal sufficiency ofa complaint is tested under Federal Rule ofCivil Procedure 12(b)(6). 

Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d 729, 732 (9th Cir. 2001). Under Rule 12(b)(6), dismissal is appropriate 

ifthe complaint fails to state a facially plausible claim for relief. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 

544, 556-57 (2007). That is, the complaint must state enough facts to raise a reasonable expectation 

that discovery will reveal evidence ofthe claim. Id at 556. Dismissal is also appropriate when the 

complaint lacks a cognizable legal theory. Robertsonv. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 749F.2d530, 534 

(9th Cir. 1984). The court must assume the truth of all factual allegations and construe them in the 

light most favorable to the plaintiff. Thompson v. Davis, 295 F.3d 890, 895 (9th Cir. 2002); Cahill 

v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 80 F.3d 336, 337-38 (9th Cir. 1996). Pro se litigants are not "excused from 

knowing the most basic pleading requirements." Am. Ass 'n ofNaturopathic Physicians v. Hayhurst, 

227 F.3d 1104, 1107 (9th Cir. 2000). 

Here, Plaintiff has not alleged any facts in support of his claims for defamation and slander. 

In addition, Plaintiff has not cited any law that affords him relief for the discontinuation of his 

membership at 24 Hour Fitness. Accordingly, the Complaint lacks a cognizable legal theory. The 

Complaint is, therefore, DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

- 2- 12-CY-2066 

Case 3:12-cv-02066-BEN-BGS Document 6 Filed 01/03/13 Page 2 of 3
5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

I II. MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL 

2 Because Plaintiffs Complaint is dismissed, Plaintiff's motion to proceed informa pauperis 

3 and motion to appoint counsel are DENIED as moot. 

4 CONCLUSION 

For the reasons stated above, the Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

6 Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint that corrects the deficiencies outlined above. 

7 Any such amended complaint must be filed no later than February 15. 2013. 

8 The motion to proceed informa pauperis and motion to appoint counsel are DENIED as moot. 

9 IfPlaintiff wishes to renew the motion to proceed informa pauperis or the motion to appoint counsel, 

Plaintiff must file a new motion to proceed informa pauperis and motion to appoint counsel along 

II with an amended complaint. 

12 

13 

14 

16 

17 

18 

19 

21 

22 

23 

24 

26 

27 

28 

-3- 12-CV-2066 

Case 3:12-cv-02066-BEN-BGS Document 6 Filed 01/03/13 Page 3 of 3