Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-02244/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-02244-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 350
Nature of Suit: Motor Vehicle Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 18:1962 Racketeering (RICO) 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

- 1 - 09cv2244 W

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GRACE L. SANDOVAL,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 09cv2244-W

ORDER: 

(1) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO PROCEED IN

FORMA PAUPERIS 

(Doc. No. 2.)

(2) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF

COUNSEL (Doc. No. 3.)

(3) SUA SPONTE

DISMISSING COMPLAINT

FOR FAILING TO STATE A

CLAIM PURSUANT TO 28

U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)

vs.

ANDREA RODGERS,

Defendant.

Before the Court are (1) Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and (2)

Plaintiff’s Request for Appointment of Counsel. (Docs. No. 2 and 3.) Plaintiff filed a

complaint, apparently alleging a personal injury involving a motor vehicle. (See Doc.

No. 1, Civil Cover Sheet.)

Case 3:09-cv-02244-W-POR Document 4 Filed 10/13/09 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

- 2 - 09cv2244 W

I. DISCUSSION

A. Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis.

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

$350. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed despite a plaintiff’s failure to

prepay the entire fee only if the plaintiff is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir.

1999). 

The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s affidavit of assets and finds it is sufficient to

show that she is unable to pay the fees or post securities required to maintain this

action. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed in forma

pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). (Doc. No. 2.) The Clerk of Court shall file

the Complaint without prepayment of the filing fee. 

B. Initial Screening Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

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

a claim on which relief may be granted” or is “ frivolous.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

As currently pleaded, it is clear that Plaintiff’s complaint: (1) fails to state a cognizable

claim and is (2) is frivolous to the extent it is based on facts which are fantastic and

delusional.

Plaintiff’s complaint must be dismissed as frivolous to the extent it pleads facts

which are fantastic or delusional. “[A] complaint, containing as it does both factual

allegations and legal conclusions, is frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis either in

law or fact. [The] term ‘frivolous,’ when applied to the complaint, embraces not only the

inarguable legal conclusion, but also the fanciful factual allegation.” Neitzke v.

Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); see also Martin v. Sias, 88 F.3d 774, 775 (9th Cir.

1996); Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995); Lopez v. Dept. of

Health Servs., 939 F.2d 881, 882 (9th Cir. 1991). When determining whether a

Case 3:09-cv-02244-W-POR Document 4 Filed 10/13/09 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

- 3 - 09cv2244 W

complaint is frivolous, the court need not accept the factual allegations as true, but must

“pierce the veil of the complaint,” to determine if the allegations are “fanciful,”

“fantastic,” or “delusional.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (quoting Neitzke,

490 U.S. at 327-28). 

Here, Plaintiff does not state any cognizable claims against the defendant, but

instead makes delusional claims against various entities and celebrities. For example,

plaintiff asserts that Defendant Andrea Rodgers has conspired with “many others born

premature with the drug provera” to cause five-car pileups on San Diego freeways. (Doc.

No. 1.) Some of the named members of this conspiracy include Patrick J. Clark and O.J.

Simpson. (Id.) In another example on page 5, Plaintiff alleges that several parties, not

listed as defendants, are part of a scheme to never make their mortgage payments and

to join in “murder with the German race massacres.”

Without more, the Court finds that there is no logical construction of Plaintiff’s

complaint from which to divine a viable claim against the named defendant. In sum,

Plaintiff’s allegations are fanciful, fantastic and delusional and “it is absolutely clear that

the deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by amendment.” Franklin v.

Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1228 n.9 (9th Cir. 1984). Accordingly, the Court

DISMISSES Plaintiff’s complaint as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(I).

C. Appointment of Counsel.

 Because the Court dismisses the case, the plaintiff’s request for appointment of

counsel is DENIED as moot. (Doc. No. 3.)

//

//

//

//

//

//

Case 3:09-cv-02244-W-POR Document 4 Filed 10/13/09 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

- 4 - 09cv2244 W

II. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS plaintiff’s motion to proceed in

forma pauperis, DISMISSES the case with prejudice, and DENIES plaintiff’s request

for appointment of counsel.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 13, 2009

Hon. Thomas J. Whelan

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-02244-W-POR Document 4 Filed 10/13/09 Page 4 of 4