Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00866/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00866-0/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PAMELA STICKLER,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 12cv0866-CAB (BLM)

Order:

1) Granting Motion to Proceed In Forma

Pauperis [Doc. No. 2];

2) Denying Motion for Appointment of

Counsel [Doc. No. 3]; and,

3) Dismissing Case

vs.

SHAWN PROAK,

Defendant.

Plaintiff Pamela Stickler has filed this action alleging in a single paragraph, “I believe 1

Shawn Proak may be part of threatening me to call police, when at the Chabad, he had said I have

someone here and I just want to arrest it. Requesting 1998 Toyota Tacoma back if not

repossessed.” [Doc. No. 1, at 2.] Plaintiff moves the Court for leave to proceed in forma pauperis

(“IFP”), and for appointment of counsel under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e5(f)(1). The Court GRANTS

Plaintiff’s motion to proceed IFP, DENIES her motion for appointment of counsel, and

DISMISSES this case without prejudice.

///

 The Court notes this is one of several actions Plaintiff has filed since February 1, 2012. 1

See inter alia, Case No. 12cv0256-DMS (RBB), Stickler v. Bush; Case No. 12cv0346-LAB

(BLM), Stickler v. Clinton; 12cv0382-CAB (JMA), Stickler v. La Mesa Police Dept; Case No.

12cv0383-BTM (NLS), Stickler v. San Diego State Police Dept; Case No. 12cv0385-JLS (JMA),

Stickler v. El Cajon Police Dept; Case No. 12cv0386-AJB (RBB), Stickler v. Federal Transit;

Case No. 12cv0387-BTM (WMc), Stickler v. San Diego Police Dept.

- 1 - 12cv0866

Case 3:12-cv-00866-CAB-BLM Document 4 Filed 04/10/12 Page 1 of 3
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

Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), the court may authorize the commencement of any

action without prepayment of fees upon a showing “that the person is unable to pay such fees or

give security therefor.” Here, Plaintiff’s application demonstrates she is unable to pay the filing

fees to initiate this action. Therefore, her motion to proceed IFP is GRANTED.

Appointment of Counsel

Plaintiff moves for appointment of counsel under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e5(f)(1). Appointment

of counsel under that section is appropriate only in cases alleging employment discrimination. 

Johnson v. U.S. Dept. of Treasury, 939 F.2d 820, 824 (9 Cir. 1991). There is nothing in th

Plaintiff’s complaint to suggest she brings a claim related to her employment.

In the alternative, a plaintiff may be entitled to appointment of voluntary counsel under the

in forma pauperis statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). An appointment under that section, however, is

only appropriate in “exceptional circumstances” considering “the likelihood of success on the

merits as well as the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate [her] claims pro se in light of the

complexity of the legal issues involved.” Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9 Cir. 2009). th

Plaintiff’s one-paragraph complaint fails to state any claim for relief. Therefore, the Court

DENIES her request for appointment of counsel.

Initial Screening

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

claim on which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see also Lopez v. Smith, 203

F.3d 1222, 1226-29 (9 Cir. 2006) (en banc) (noting that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) “not only permits but th

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, 556 U.S.

662, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). Here, Plaintiff names Shawn Proak as a defendant but sets

forth no facts which could give rise to any liability. Therefore, the Court DISMISSES the

complaint. However, because it is not “absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint

could not be cured by amendment,” the Court dismisses the case without prejudice. Silva v.

- 2 - 12cv0866

Case 3:12-cv-00866-CAB-BLM Document 4 Filed 04/10/12 Page 2 of 3
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

DiVittorio, 658 F.3d 1090, 1005 (9 Cir. 2011) (citing Schucker v. Rockwood, 846 F.2d 1202, th

1203-04 (9 Cir. 1988)) (in light of liberal amendment policy of Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a), district court th

should freely give leave to amend when dismissing pro se complaint).

Conclusion

The Court hereby GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, DENIES her

motion for appointment of counsel, and DISMISSES this case without prejudice to the filing of an

amended complaint within 30 days of the filing of this order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 10, 2012

CATHY ANN BENCIVENGO

United States District Judge

- 3 - 12cv0866

Case 3:12-cv-00866-CAB-BLM Document 4 Filed 04/10/12 Page 3 of 3