Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00363/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00363-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury

---

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

11cv363

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BIRGITTA WASELL,

Plaintiff,

CIVIL CASE NO. 11-CV-363 MMA (RBB)

vs. ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS;

[Doc. No. 2]

DENYING AS MOOT REQUEST

FOR APPOINTMENT OF

COUNSEL;

[Doc. No. 3]

DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH

PREJUDICE

DARRELL SELLERS,

Defendant.

Plaintiff Birgitta Wasell, proceeding pro se, has filed a complaint [Doc. No. 1], along with a

Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) [Doc. No. 2] and a Request for Appointment Counsel

[Doc. No. 3]. Based on the information provided by Plaintiff, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), the

Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s IFP motion, solely for the purpose of the motions currently before the

Court. The Court is obligated to review a complaint filed IFP sua sponte and must dismiss the

action if it determines that the complaint is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim for relief. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). After careful review, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s complaint is

frivolous and void of any plausible claims for relief. Because “it is absolutely clear that the

deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by amendment,” the Court DISMISSES the

complaint with prejudice. Franklin v. Murphy, 245 F.2d 1221, 1228 n.9 (9th Cir. 1984). As such,

the Court DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiff’s Request for Appointment of Counsel. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 4, 2011

Hon. Michael M. Anello

United States District Judge

Case 3:11-cv-00363-MMA-RBB Document 4 Filed 03/04/11 Page 1 of 1