Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00987/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00987-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

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 - 11cv0987-IEG (WVG)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DON ALLEN SPRAGGINS,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 11-CV-0987 - IEG (WVG)

ORDER:

(1) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO PROCEED IN

FORMA PAUPERIS;

(2) SUA SPONTE DISMISSING

COMPLAINT

vs.

STATE OF ALASKA; STATE OF

GEORGIA; STATE OF ARKANSAS;

RUSSELL L. CRISP; NICOLE GIRARD;

EVELYN WILLIAMS; and JUDGE

WILLIAM F. MORSE,

Defendants.

Plaintiff commenced this action on May 6, 2011, alleging his civil rights were violated. 

[Doc. No. 1.] Along with his Complaint, Plaintiff submitted a Motion to Proceed In Forma

Pauperis. Having considered Plaintiff’s request, Court GRANTS Plaintiff leave to proceed in

forma pauperis, but DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s Complaint.

DISCUSSION

I. MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

All parties instituting any civil action, suit, or proceeding in a district court, except an

application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of $350. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a).

However, an action may proceed despite failure to pay the filing fee if the party is granted an in

forma pauperis (“IFP”) status. See Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). The

Case 3:11-cv-00987-IEG-WVG Document 3 Filed 05/19/11 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

- 2 - 11cv0987-IEG (WVG)

Court may grant IFP status to any party who demonstrates that he or she is unable to pay such fees

or give security therefor. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

In the present case, having reviewed Plaintiff’s motion and declaration in support of

motion, the Court finds that Plaintiff has made a sufficient showing of inability to pay the required

filing fees. See Rodriguez, 169 F.3d at 1177. Accordingly, good cause appearing, the Court

GRANTS Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

II. 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); see also Lopez v.

Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (noting that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) “not

only permits but requires” the court to sua sponte dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint that fails

to state a claim). A complaint is frivolous “where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in

fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989) (superseded on other grounds as stated in

Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126 (9th Cir. 2000)). Where a complaint fails to state “any

constitutional or statutory right that was violated, nor asserts any basis for federal subject matter

jurisdiction,” there is no “arguable basis in law” under Neitzke and the court on its own initiative

may decline to permit the plaintiff to proceed and dismiss the complaint under Section 1915. Cato

v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995).

Here, in connection with state court proceedings relating to child support, Plaintiff seeks

monetary damages and a recalculation of payments due. See Compl. Plaintiff has sued each of the

individual Defendants in his or her official capacity. Id.

Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. To the extent

he seeks relief from a final state court judgment, this Court lacks jurisdiction to grant relief. See

Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars

direct and de facto appeals from final state court judgments). Even if the Court had jurisdiction,

Plaintiff’s Complaint would be subject to dismissal to the extent he seeks monetary damages. See

Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989) (Absent a waiver of Eleventh

Amendment immunity, neither states nor state officials, acting in their official capacities, are

Case 3:11-cv-00987-IEG-WVG Document 3 Filed 05/19/11 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

- 3 - 11cv0987-IEG (WVG)

subject to suit for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in federal court). Accordingly, the Court

DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s complaint.

CONCLUSION

 Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed in Forma

Pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), but DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s

complaint for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

Plaintiff is GRANTED thirty (30) days from the date this Order is filed to file a First

Amended Complaint addressing the deficiencies of the pleading set forth above. Plaintiff is

cautioned his First Amended Complaint must be complete in itself, without relying on references

to the original Complaint. Plaintiff is further cautioned any defendant not named or claim not realleged will be considered waived. See King v. Attiyeh, 814 F.3d 1172, 1177-79 (9th Cir. 1996).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 19, 2011

IRMA E. GONZALEZ, Chief Judge

United States District Court

Case 3:11-cv-00987-IEG-WVG Document 3 Filed 05/19/11 Page 3 of 3