Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02019/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02019-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 448
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights - Education
Cause of Action: 20:1415 IDEA: Challenge decision re education for handicapped

---

1

18-cv-2019-WQH-JMA

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

P. Lopez,

Plaintiff,

v.

San Marcos Unified School 

District,

Defendant.

Case No.: 18-cv-2019-WQH-JMA

ORDER

HAYES, Judge:

On August 29, 2018, Plaintiff P. Lopez initiated this action by filing a Petition for 

Attorney Fees and Costs (ECF No. 1) (the “Petition”) and an Amended Motion to Proceed 

in Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) (ECF No. 5).

I. IFP

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

United States, other than a petition for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of 

$400.00. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); CivLR 4.5. An action may proceed despite a party’s 

failure to pay only if the party 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). 

The declaration filed by P. Lopez states “I am unable to pay the fees of this

proceeding.” (ECF No. 5 at 1). Lopez’s only income is $1,272 a month in “state 

[d]isability,” which Lopez uses to support three children and a spouse. Id. at 2–3. Lopez’s 

four dependents are entirely dependent on Lopez’s income. Id. at 3. Lopez’s monthly 

expenses include bills for water, electricity, telephone and cable services. Id. Lopez 

Case 3:18-cv-02019-WQH-JMA Document 7 Filed 09/14/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

18-cv-2019-WQH-JMA

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

controls a bank account with a balance of $50.00, and apart from a 2002 Dodge Grand 

Caravan, Lopez has no other assets of value. Id. at 2–3. Lopez’s Motion to Proceed IFP

(ECF No. 5) is GRANTED. 

II. Initial Screening

A complaint filed by any person proceeding IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) is 

subject to mandatory review and sua sponte dismissal to the extent it “is frivolous or 

malicious; fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or seeks monetary relief 

from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Lopez v. 

Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). This screening standard applies to 

all civil actions filed by plaintiffs proceeding IFP. See Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 

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

limited to prisoners.”).

The standard used to evaluate whether a complaint states a claim is a liberal one. 

See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). However, even a “liberal 

interpretation . . . may not supply 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). Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) provides “A pleading that states a claim for relief must 

contain . . . a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to 

relief.” “[A] plaintiff’s obligation to provide the grounds of his entitlement to relief 

requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a 

cause of action will not do.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) 

(quotation omitted).

Plaintiff, the parent and guardian of disabled minor E.L., sought certain special 

education assessments and services for E.L. from Defendant San Marcos Unified School 

District. (ECF No. 1 at 2). In February and March 2018, pursuant to the Individuals with 

Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1415 (2006) (“IDEA”), a due process hearing was 

held in front of an Administrative Law Judge regarding the requested special education 

assessments and services. (ECF No. 1 at 2). On April 26, 2018, the Administrative Law 

Case 3:18-cv-02019-WQH-JMA Document 7 Filed 09/14/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

18-cv-2019-WQH-JMA

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

Judge found in favor of Plaintiff on “Issue 3”, one of 9 issues considered by the 

Administrative Law Judge. (ECF No. 1-2 at 52). The Administrative Law Judge ordered 

the Defendant to provide certain independent psycho-educational and behavioral 

evaluations to E.L., as well as the assistance of a behavioral-analysis trained staff member 

for all hours E.L. attends preschool. Id. at 51–52. Plaintiff brings this action to recover 

attorneys’ fees arising from that administrative hearing. Id. at 1.

Under IDEA, a Court “in its discretion, may award reasonable attorneys’ fees as part 

of the costs . . . to a prevailing party who is the parent of a child with a disability.” 20 

U.S.C. § 1415(i)(3)(B)(i)(I). Attorneys’ fees incurred during administrative hearings are 

available under IDEA. Barlow-Gresham Union High Sch. Dist. No. 2 v. Mitchell, 940 F.2d 

1280, 1284 (9th Cir. 1991) (“[t]he clear language of section 1415(e)(4)(B) contemplates 

an award of attorneys' fees at the administrative level.”).

Plaintiff contends that Plaintiff is entitled to recover reasonable attorneys’ fees 

because “[s]tudent was the prevailing party at the administrative level . . . because she 

prevailed on issue 3,” providing Plaintiff with “the majority of remedies she sought in the 

case.” (ECF No. 1 at 3). 

Upon review, the Court concludes that the Petition adequately states a claim for 

purposes of the sua sponte screening required under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). Plaintiff is 

therefore entitled to U.S. Marshal service on Plaintiff’s behalf. See Lopez, 203 F.3d at 

1126–27; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) (“The officers of the court shall issue and serve all process, 

and perform all duties in [IFP] cases.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(2) (providing that “service be 

effected by a United States marshal, deputy United States marshal, or other officer specially 

appointed by the court . . . when the plaintiff is authorized to proceed in forma pauperis 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.”).

III. Conclusion

The Motion to Proceed IFP (ECF No. 5) is GRANTED. The Clerk of the Court 

shall issue a summons and provide Plaintiff with the summons, certified copies of both this 

Order and the Petition, and a blank U.S. Marshal Form 285. Plaintiff shall complete the 

Case 3:18-cv-02019-WQH-JMA Document 7 Filed 09/14/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

18-cv-2019-WQH-JMA

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

U.S. Marshal Form 285 and forward the Form 285 and the designated copies of this Order 

and the Petition to the U.S. Marshal. The U.S. Marshal shall serve a copy of the Petition

and summons upon Defendant as directed by Plaintiff on the U.S. Marshal Form 285.

Dated: September 14, 2018

Case 3:18-cv-02019-WQH-JMA Document 7 Filed 09/14/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4