Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00156/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00156-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1981cv Civil Rights

---

1

2

17 APR-B AM ft-jlt

3

S3sav£w*~;.-.&A^i-.,;, ?:i4U;.kaM}i?

4

<¥T i®§» 5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 JAMES JOSEPH CAPERS, Case No.: 3:17-cv-00156-BEN-NLS

12 Plaintiff,

ORDER:

13 v.

(1) DENYING MOTION TO

PROVIDE PROOF OF SERVICE; UNITED STATES JUSTICE

DEPARTMENT,

14

15

Defendant. (2) DENYING SECOND MOTION

FOR APPOINTMENT OF

COUNSEL; and

16

17

18 (3) DISMISSING COMPLAINT FOR

19 FAILING TO STATE A CLAIM

20

PlaintiffJanies Joseph Capers has filed a Motion to Provide Proofof Service and a

second Motion for Appointment ofCounsel. (Docket Nos. 11,13.) The Court finds the

Motions suitable for determination on the papers without oral argument, pursuant to Civil

Local Rule 7.1.d.l. For the reasons set forth below, each Motion is DENIED, and

Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice.

Motion to Provide Proof of Service

Plaintiffmoved for a court order ordering a United States Marshall to serve

Defendant. (Docket No. 11.) However, Plaintiff did not state what it wanted the Court to

21

22

23

24

25

26 I.

27

28

l

3:17-cv-00156-BEN-NLS

Case 3:17-cv-00156-BEN-NLS Document 14 Filed 04/05/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
serve on Defendant. Even ifthe Court assumes Plaintiffseeks to have Defendant served

with the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), Plaintiffs request is moot because

Defendant has already appeared by moving for an extension oftime to file its answer to

the FAC. (Docket No. 8.) Accordingly, Plaintiffs Motion to Provide Proof of Service is

DENIED.

1

2

3

4

5

i 6 Second Motion for Appointment of Counsel

Plaintiffs second Motion for Appointment ofCounsel asserts Plaintiffshould be

appointed counsel because Plaintiffis indigent, disabled, and has been unable to retain an

attorney. (Docket No. 13 at 1-3.)

As the Court stated in its February 7, 2017 Order (docket no. 4), courts have

discretion, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) (1996), to appoint counsel for indigent

civil litigants upon a showing of exceptional circumstances. “A finding of exceptional

circumstances requires an evaluation of both the likelihood ofsuccess on the merits and

the ability ofthe petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light ofthe complexity ofthe

legal issues involved.” Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991) (internal

citations omitted). “Neither ofthese factors is dispositive and both must be viewed

together before reaching a decision.” Id. (internal citations omitted).

The Court cannot say there is any likelihood ofsuccess on the merits ofPlaintiffs

claims because, as will be explained in further detail below, Plaintiffs FAC fails to state

a claim upon which reliefmay be granted. In addition, Plaintiffdoes not demonstrate an

inability to represent herselfbeyond the ordinary burdens encountered by plaintiffs

representing themselvespro se. See Garcia v. Smith, No. 10-cv-l 187, 2012 WL

2499003, at *4 (S.D. Cal. June 27, 2012). Therefore, the Court finds that the exceptional

II.

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27 l The Court denied Plaintiffs first request for appointment of counsel for failing to

28 demonstrate a likelihood ofsuccess on the merits ofher claim. (Docket No. 4.)

2

3:17-cv-OO156-BEN-NLS

Case 3:17-cv-00156-BEN-NLS Document 14 Filed 04/05/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
circumstances required for the appointment of counsel are not present. Plaintiffs second

Motion for Appointment ofCounsel is DENIED.

III. Section 1915 Screening

The Court granted Plaintiffs Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”)

(docket no. 4), and must determine whether Plaintiffs FAC sufficiently alleges facts to

state a claim for relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).

A. Legal Standard

Under section 1915(e) oftitle 28 ofthe United States Code, the Court must sua

sponte dismiss IFP complaints, or any portions thereof, which are frivolous, malicious,

fail to state a claim, or which seek damages from defendants who are immune. See Lopez

v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (discussing 28 U.S.C. §

1915(e)(2)). “[T]he provisions ofsection 1915(e)(2)(B) are not limited to prisoners.”

Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2001).

Every complaint must contain “a short and plain statement ofthe claim showing

that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations

are not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals ofthe elements of a cause of action, supported

by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678

(2009) (citing BellAtl Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). “When there are

well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity, and then determine

whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.” Id. at 679; see Barren v.

Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (noting that section 1915(e)(2)

“parallels the language ofFederal Rule ofCivil Procedure 12(b)(6)”). “Determining

whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief [is]... a context-specific task that

requires the reviewing court to draw on itsjudicial experience and common sense.”

Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679. The “mere possibility ofmisconduct” falls short ofmeeting this

plausibility standard. Id.’, see also Moss v. U.S. Secret Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir.

2009).

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

3

3:17-cv-OO156-BEN-NLS

Case 3:17-cv-00156-BEN-NLS Document 14 Filed 04/05/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
While a plaintiffs factual allegations are taken as true, courts “are not required to

indulge unwarranted inferences.” Doelv. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th

Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Indeed, while courts “have an

obligation where the petitioner is pro se, particularly in civil rights cases, to construe the

pleadings liberally and to afford the petitioner the benefit of any doubt,” Hebbe v. Pliler,

627 F.3d 338, 342 & n.7 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Bretz v. Kelman, 773 F.2d 1026, 1027 n.l

(9th Cir. 1985)), it may not “supply essential elements of claims that were not initially

pled.” Ivey v. Bd. of Regents ofthe Univ. of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982).

B. Discussion

Plaintiffs FAC must be dismissed for failing to state a claim upon which relief

may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The Court previously found Plaintiffs 7-page

initial complaint failed to state a claim because it contained “nonsensical and seemingly

irrelevant assertions regarding Plaintiffs ‘creations and inventions,’ groundless

accusations ofmisconduct by ‘the government,’ and vague conclusions that ‘the

government’ discriminated against him for being transgender.” (Docket No. 4 at 4.)

Plaintiffs 48-page FAC has not cured those deficiencies.2 (Docket No. 5.)

Plaintiffs Complaint contains various accusations, state and federal legal definitions,

pictures ofscientific research, excerpts of alleged contracts, and legal conclusions

spanning multiple time frames. Thus, Plaintifffails to provide “a short and plain

statement ofthe claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,” and it is unclear

whether she has stated any plausible claims for relief. Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 8(a)(2).

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22 III

23 III

24

25

2 The Court further notes Plaintiff did not provide “a version ofthe proposed amended

pleading that shows—through redlining, underlining, strikeouts, or other similarly

effective typographic methods—how the proposed amended pleading differs from the

operative pleading,” as required by Civil Local Rule 15.1.b.

26

27

28

4

3:17-cv-00156-BEN-NLS

Case 3:17-cv-00156-BEN-NLS Document 14 Filed 04/05/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
As a result, the Court must dismiss the FAC for failing to state a claim upon which

reliefmay be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). However, the Court grants Plaintiffleave

to file a Second Amended Complaint that cures the deficiencies identified above.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, Plaintiffs Motion to Provide Proof of Service and

second Motion for Appointment ofCounsel are DENIED. Plaintiffs First Amended

Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice for failing to state a claim. Plaintiffis

granted thirty (30) days from the date ofthis Order to file a second amended complaint

(“SAC”) that cures the deficiencies identified in this Order. IfPlaintiff does not file a

SAC, this action shall remain closed without further order ofthe Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

HOI^RffefiR T. BENlUiZ

United States District Judge

13 DATED: Apr! , 2017

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

3:17-cv-OO 156-BEN-NLS

Case 3:17-cv-00156-BEN-NLS Document 14 Filed 04/05/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5