Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02929/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02929-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights 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

JOHN PAUL FREITAG,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 11-CV-2929 - IEG (JMA)

ORDER:

(1) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO PROCEED IN

FORMA PAUPERIS; 

[Doc. No. 2]

(2) SUA SPONTE DISMISSING

COMPLAINT; AND

[Doc. No. 1]

(3) DENYING WITHOUT

PREJUDICE AS MOOT MOTION

FOR APPOINTMENT OF

COUNSEL

[Doc. No. 3]

vs.

CITY OF SAN DIEGO AMBASSADORS,

Defendants.

Plaintiff commenced this action on December 16, 2011 against the City of San Diego

Ambassadors (“Ambassadors”). [Doc. No. 1.] Along with his complaint, Plaintiff submitted a

motion to proceed in forma pauperis and a motion for the appointment of counsel. [Doc. Nos. 2-

3.] Having considered Plaintiff’s submissions, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff leave to proceed in

forma pauperis, DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s complaint, and DENIES AS

MOOT Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel.

- 1 - 11cv2929

Case 3:11-cv-02929-IEG-JMA Document 5 Filed 12/19/11 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

DISCUSSION

I. MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

All parties instituting any civil action, suit, or proceeding in a district court, except an

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

However, an action may proceed despite failure to pay the filing fee if the party is granted an in

forma pauperis (“IFP”) status. See Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). The

Court may grant IFP status to any party who demonstrates that he or she is unable to pay such fees

or give security therefor. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

In the present case, having reviewed Plaintiff’s motion and declaration in support of the

motion, the Court finds that Plaintiff has made a sufficient showing of inability to pay the required

filing fees. See Rodriguez, 169 F.3d at 1177. Accordingly, good cause appearing, the Court

GRANTS Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

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

After granting IFP status, the Court must dismiss the case if the complaint “fails to state a

claim on which relief may be granted” or is “frivolous.” 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 in forma pauperis complaint that fails

to state a claim). In order to properly state a claim for relief, “a complaint must contain sufficient

factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v.

Iqbal,–U.S.–, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). A complaint must contain more than a “labels and

conclusions” or a “formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action;” it must contain factual

allegations sufficient to “raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v.

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). “‘The pleading must contain something more . . . than . . . a

statement of facts that merely creates a suspicion [of] a legally cognizable right of action.’” Id.

A complaint is frivolous “where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke

v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989) (superseded on other grounds as stated in Lopez v. Smith,

203 F.3d 1122, 1126 (9th Cir. 2000)). Where a complaint fails to state “any constitutional or

statutory right that was violated, nor asserts any basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction,” there

- 2 - 11cv2929

Case 3:11-cv-02929-IEG-JMA Document 5 Filed 12/19/11 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

is no “arguable basis in law” under Neitzke, and the court on its own initiative may decline to

permit the plaintiff to proceed and dismiss the complaint under Section 1915. Cato v. United

States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995).

As currently pleaded, Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a cognizable claim against

Defendants. Plaintiff’s complaint consists of a string of conclusory legal statements and a list of

various interactions that Plaintiff has had with City of San Diego Safety Ambassadors over the last

month. [See Compl.] These factual allegations do not state a cognizable cause of action against

Defendants and at most merely state that at various times Defendants told Plaintiff that they would

call the police if Plaintiff did not move from his current location. In addition, Plaintiff’s complaint

fails to assert any basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction.

Even affording Plaintiff’s complaint the special consideration given to pro se claimants, his

allegations fail to present a cognizable legal theory or facts sufficient to support a cognizable legal

theory against the Defendants. Although the Court must assume Plaintiff can prove the facts he

alleges in his complaint, 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). 

Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s complaint as frivolous

and for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

III. MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

In addition to his complaint, Plaintiff has also filed a motion for appointment of counsel. 

[Doc. No. 3.] Because the Court dismisses Plaintiff’s complaint in its entirety without prejudice,

Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as moot.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed in Forma

Pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), but DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s

complaint as frivolous and for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The Court

also DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE as moot Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel.

Plaintiff is GRANTED thirty (30) days from the date this Order is filed to file a First

Amended Complaint addressing the deficiencies of the pleading set forth above. Plaintiff is

- 3 - 11cv2929

Case 3:11-cv-02929-IEG-JMA Document 5 Filed 12/19/11 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

cautioned his First Amended Complaint must be complete in itself, without relying on references to

the original Complaint. Plaintiff is further cautioned any defendant not named or claim not

re-alleged will be considered waived. See King v. Attiyeh, 814 F.3d 1172, 1177-79 (9th Cir. 1996).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 19, 2011 ______________________________

IRMA E. GONZALEZ, Chief Judge

United States District Court

- 4 - 11cv2929

Case 3:11-cv-02929-IEG-JMA Document 5 Filed 12/19/11 Page 4 of 4