Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-02459/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-02459-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 895
Nature of Suit: Freedom of Information Act of 1974
Cause of Action: 05:0552fi Freedom of Information Act

---

1

19cv2459-DMS-BLM

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

MARCELLA RODRIGUEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

SCRIPPS HEALTH,

Defendant.

Case No.: 19cv2459-DMS-BLM

ORDER (1) GRANTING 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 

AND (2) DISMISSING COMPLAINT

WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR 

FAILING TO STATE A CLAIM 

UPON WHICH RELIEF CAN BE 

GRANTED PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)

Plaintiff, a non-prisoner proceeding pro se, has submitted a Complaint along with a 

request to proceed In Forma Pauperis.

Motion to Proceed IFP

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 

$400. 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 IFP pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(a). See Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). This Court 

finds Plaintiff’s affidavit of assets is sufficient to show he is unable to pay the fees or post 

Case 3:19-cv-02459-DMS-BLM Document 4 Filed 02/03/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

19cv2459-DMS-BLM

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

securities required to maintain this action. See Civil Local Rule 3.2(d). Accordingly, the 

Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

Sua Sponte Screening per 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)

Notwithstanding payment of any filing fee or portion thereof, a complaint filed by 

any person proceeding IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) is subject to a mandatory and 

sua sponte review and dismissal by the court to the extent it is frivolous, malicious, fails to 

state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant 

immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 

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

prisoners.”); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). Prior to 

its amendment by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, the former 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) 

permitted sua sponte dismissal of only frivolous and malicious claims. Id. at 1130. The 

newly enacted 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), however, mandates that the court reviewing a 

complaint filed pursuant to the IFP provisions of section 1915 make and rule on its own 

motion to dismiss before directing that the complaint be served by the U.S. Marshal 

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(2). Lopez, 203 F.3d 1127 (“[S]ection 1915(e) not only 

permits, but requires a district court to dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint that fails to 

state a claim.”); see also Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (noting 

the “the language of § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) parallels the language of Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 12(b)(6)”). 

Here, Plaintiff filed suit under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), seeking 

“reimbursement for losses that incurred as a result of being denied [her] civil rights.” 

(Compl. at 3). Plaintiff alleges the Chula Vista Hospital denied her access to her medical 

records and then destroyed the records. (Id. at 2). Plaintiff does not seek the release of her 

medical records; instead, she seeks $25,000 in monetary damages. (Id. at 3). FOIA limits 

“actual damages sustained by the individual as a result of the refusal or failure [to provide 

the documents] to less than $1,000. 5 U.S.C. § 552a(g)(4)(A). Therefore, Plaintiff seeks 

Case 3:19-cv-02459-DMS-BLM Document 4 Filed 02/03/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

19cv2459-DMS-BLM

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

improper relief under FOIA. Plaintiff’s complaint is subject to sua sponte dismissal under 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 

Conclusion and Order

For these reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed 

IFP is GRANTED and the Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to state 

a claim.1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 3, 2020

 

1

 In light of this ruling, Plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel is denied.

Case 3:19-cv-02459-DMS-BLM Document 4 Filed 02/03/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3