Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00629/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00629-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331cv Fed. Question: Other Civil Rights

---

-1- 17cv629-MMA (WVG)

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 

RICH RYAN GARCIA, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

ESCONDIDO AAA INSURANCE, 

Defendant.

Case No.: 17cv629-MMA (WVG)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS; 

[Doc. No. 2] 

DISMISSING COMPLAINT 

PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(e)(2)(B); 

[Doc. No. 1] 

AND DENYING MOTION FOR 

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 

[Doc. No. 3]

Plaintiff Rich Ryan Garcia, proceeding pro se, has filed the instant action against 

Defendant Escondido AAA Insurance. See Doc. No. 1. Plaintiff also moves for leave to 

proceed in this action in forma pauperis (“IFP”), and moves for appointment of counsel. 

See Doc. Nos. 2, 3. 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IFP 

All parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in a district court of the 

United States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of 

Case 3:17-cv-00629-MMA-WVG Document 4 Filed 05/09/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
 -2- 17cv629-MMA (WVG)

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

$400. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed despite a plaintiff’s failure to 

prepay the entire fee only if she is granted leave to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(a). See Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). “To proceed in 

forma pauperis is a privilege not a right.” Smart v. Heinze, 347 F.2d 114, 116 (9th Cir. 

1965). 

A party need not be completely destitute to proceed in forma pauperis. Adkins v. 

E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339–40 (1948). But “the same evenhanded care must be employed to assure that federal funds are not squandered to 

underwrite, at public expense, either frivolous claims or the remonstrances of a suitor 

who is financially able, in whole or in material part, to pull his own oar.” Temple v. 

Ellerthorpe, 586 F. Supp. 848, 850 (D.R.I. 1984). Based on the information provided by 

Plaintiff, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s IFP motion, 

solely for the purpose of sua sponte screening Plaintiff’s complaint. 

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

When a plaintiff proceeds IFP, the complaint is subject to mandatory screening and 

the Court must order the sua sponte dismissal of any case it finds “frivolous, malicious, 

failing to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeking monetary relief from 

a defendant immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 

F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (“[T]he provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) are not 

limited to prisoners.”). 

“[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). In 

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

In giving liberal interpretation to a pro se complaint, however, the court may not “supply 

essential elements of claims that were not initially pled.” See Ivey v. Board of Regents of 

the University of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). 

 Under the “notice pleading” standard of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a 

Case 3:17-cv-00629-MMA-WVG Document 4 Filed 05/09/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
 -3- 17cv629-MMA (WVG)

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 complaint must provide, in part, a “short and plain statement” of plaintiff’s 

claims showing entitlement to relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2); see also Paulsen v. CNF, 

Inc., 559 F.3d 1061, 1071 (9th Cir. 2009). A complaint should be dismissed for failure to 

state a claim if, taking all well-pleaded factual allegations as true, it does not contain 

“enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” See Coto Settlement 

v. Eisenberg, 593 F.3d 1031, 1034 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 

1937, 1949 (2009)). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual 

content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable 

for the misconduct alleged.” Caviness v. Horizon Cmty. Learning Ctr., Inc., 590 F.3d 

806, 812 (9th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted). 

 The Court is not only allowed to, but is required to screen IFP complaints. See 

Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126–27 (9th Cir. 2000); Ogunniyi v. Sw. Reg’l Maint. 

Ctr., No. 14CV2904 BEN (NLS), 2015 WL 10857499, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 30, 2015) 

(“The sua sponte screening is mandatory.”). “A trial court may dismiss a claim sua 

sponte under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). . . . Such dismissal may be made without notice 

where the claimant cannot possibly win relief.” Omar v. Sea-Land Serv., Inc., 813 F.2d 

986, 991 (9th Cir. 1987); see Wong v. Bell, 642 F.2d 359, 36162 (9th Cir. 1981). 

After thoroughly reviewing Plaintiff’s complaint and the accompanying exhibit, 

the Court concludes that Plaintiff fails to state any plausible claim upon which relief 

could be granted. Plaintiff alleges one cause of action for falsification of records and 

documents.1

 See Doc. No. 1 at 2. Plaintiff alleges generally that Defendant created a 

false report2

 claiming Plaintiff impersonated a Border Patrol Agent at the Escondido 

                                               

1

 Plaintiff indicates on the Civil Cover Sheet that authorities “[h]eld me in SDJC, not able to bail 

out!” Doc. No. 1-1. The body of Plaintiff’s complaint, however, is devoted to the alleged false report 

and Plaintiff’s desire for Escondido AAA to be criminally charged. See Doc. No. 1. 

 

2

 The Court notes that the report Plaintiff attaches to his IFP motion bears no caption or seal 

identifying the author of such report. See Doc. No. 2 at 7. Additionally, the report contains several 

hand-written notations that do not appear to have any meaning. See id. 

Case 3:17-cv-00629-MMA-WVG Document 4 Filed 05/09/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
 -4- 17cv629-MMA (WVG)

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

AAA office and “caus[ed] a rukus [sic].” Id. Plaintiff desires a “Federal Prosecutor . . . 

place charges against Escondido AAA.” Id. Plaintiff also seeks monetary and 

compensatory damages. Id. 

Even construing Plaintiff’s complaint liberally, Plaintiff attempts to state a claim 

against Defendant of a criminal nature. However, an individual may not bring criminal 

charges against another individual by filing a civil complaint in this Court. See Aldabe v. 

Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 1980) (noting that the relief sought under criminal 

statutes, “however, provide[s] no basis for civil liability.”). After careful review, the 

Court finds Plaintiff’s complaint is void of any plausible claim for relief. Because “it is 

absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by amendment,” 

the Court DISMISSES the complaint with prejudice.

3

 Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 

1221, 1228 n.9 (9th Cir. 1984) (citing Stanger v. City of Santa Cruz, 653 F.2d 1257, 

1257-58 (9th Cir. 1980)). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 9, 2017

 _____________________________ 

 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO 

United States District Judge 

                                               

3

 As such, the Court DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel. 

Case 3:17-cv-00629-MMA-WVG Document 4 Filed 05/09/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4