Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02904/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02904-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:2671 Federal Tort Claims 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 - 11cv2904

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN PAUL FREITAG,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 11cv2904-LAB (WMc)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS;

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL;

AND

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

vs.

SAN DIEGO CITY ATTORNEY ,

MICHAEL GIORGINO,

Defendant.

On December 13, 2011, Plaintiff John Freitag filed his complaint without paying the

filing fee. He did, however, file an application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) and a

motion for appointment of counsel. The IFP application is incomplete. It says Freitag is

receiving social security, disability benefits, or other welfare, but then fails to say how much

he receives. He also says he has no assets or property of any kind, although the complaint

refers to his cell phone records. The application is therefore DENIED WITHOUT

PREJUDICE.

Even if the Freitag is able to file a complete IFP application, the Court would be

required to screen the Court is required to screen the complaint and to dismiss it to the

extent it is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks monetary relief from an

immune defendant. See § 1915(e)(2)(B); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir.

Case 3:11-cv-02904-LAB-WMC Document 4 Filed 12/16/11 Page 1 of 2
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

 A Westlaw search of California court dockets using these numbers returned no 1

results. Freitag apparently has two differently-numbered inactive harassment suits against

San Diego police officers, but those defendants’ names do not match any in this action.

- 2 - 11cv2904

2000). Because Freitag is proceeding pro se, the Court construes his pleadings liberally,

see Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1137 (9th Cir. 1987), but even a liberal construction

does not supply elements Freitag has not pleaded. See Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d

266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982).

Freitag’s complaint is one page long. He also filed a supplement to the complaint

attempting to explain it further. Even with the additional information, the complaint is difficult

to follow. Apparently Freitag is displeased that someone placed him under citizen’s arrest,

and he thinks the San Diego police should have done something. Some kind of proceeding

has apparently taken place against him in California state court; he mentions “malicious

prosecution” and cites case numbers 662067 and M121882. Freitag mentions various state 1

causes of action, including libel, nuisance, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Freitag also mentions being abused by unnamed citizens of San Diego. The complaint

doesn’t make any allegations against either the San Diego City Attorney or Michael Giorgino,

a local attorney.

If Freitag does have a related case pending in state court, this Court would abstain

from issuing rulings that interfere with proceedings. If Freitag was involved in a case but the

case is final, the Court would lack jurisdiction over Freitag’s de facto appeal, under the

Rooker-Feldman doctrine. See Carmona v. Carmona, 603 F.3d 1041, 1050 (9th Cir. 2010).

In either situation, Freitag would have no proper purpose for pursuing claims in this Court

against two attorneys. Because the complaint fails to state a claim, fails to invoke the

Court’s jurisdiction, and appears to be malicious, it is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Freitag’s motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED AS MOOT.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 16, 2011

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

Case 3:11-cv-02904-LAB-WMC Document 4 Filed 12/16/11 Page 2 of 2