Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00542/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00542-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 380
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Property Damage
Cause of Action: 28:1333pd Property Damage

---

-1- 18cv542-MMA (JMA)

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 

JAN WOJTASZEK, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

TRAMVIEW INVESTORS, 

Defendant.

Case No.: 18cv542-MMA (JMA)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS; 

[Doc. No. 3] 

DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH 

PREJUDICE 

 [Doc. No. 1]

 

On March 15, 2018, Plaintiff Jan Wojtaszek, proceeding pro se, commenced the 

instant action against Defendant Tramview Investors (“Defendant”).1

 See Complaint. 

Along with the Complaint, Plaintiff filed motions to appoint counsel and to proceed in 

forma pauperis (“IFP”). See Doc. Nos. 2, 3. For the reasons set forth below, the Court 

GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to proceed IFP and DISMISSES Plaintiff’s Complaint with 

                                               

1

 Plaintiff previously filed a similar action against the same Defendant in January 2012. See 12-

CV-227-MMA-JMA (Doc. No. 1). This Court dismissed the complaint with prejudice because 

Plaintiff’s allegations did not state a claim for relief, or provide any basis for the Court’s subject matter 

jurisdiction. Id. (Doc. No. 16). Plaintiff appealed (No. 12-55874), and the Ninth Circuit dismissed 

Plaintiff’s case on September 12, 2012. Id. (Doc. No. 24). Despite the fact that the Court dismissed 

Plaintiff’s Complaint in 2012, Plaintiff continued to file various documents in the case through October 

2017, at which point the Court issued a “Do Not File” Order indicating that no further filings would be 

accepted in the case. Id. (Doc. No. 35). 

Case 3:18-cv-00542-MMA-JMA Document 5 Filed 03/30/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
 -2- 18cv542-MMA (JMA)

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

prejudice. 

MOTION FOR LEAVE 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 he 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). “To proceed in 

forma pauperis is a privilege not a right.” Smart v. Heinze, 347 F.2d 114, 116 (9th Cir. 

1965). 

 A party need not be completely destitute to proceed in forma pauperis. Adkins v. 

E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339–40 (1948). But “the same evenhanded care must be employed to assure that federal funds are not squandered to 

underwrite, at public expense, either frivolous claims or the remonstrances of a suitor 

who is financially able, in whole or in material part, to pull his own oar.” Temple v. 

Ellerthorpe, 586 F. Supp. 848, 850 (D.R.I. 1984). Based on the information provided by 

Plaintiff, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), the Court concludes that Plaintiff lacks the 

financial resources to pay the costs of commencing this action. As such, the Court 

GRANTS Plaintiff’s IFP motion. 

SCREENING PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(E)(2)(B) 

 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). .”). “[W]hen determining whether a 

complaint states a claim, a court must accept as true all allegations of material fact and 

must construe those facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.” Resnick v. Hayes, 

213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). In addition, the Court has a duty to liberally construe 

a pro se plaintiff’s pleadings. See id. In giving liberal interpretation to a pro se

complaint, however, the court may not “supply essential elements of claims that were not 

initially pled.” See Ivey v. Board of Regents of the University of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 

Case 3:18-cv-00542-MMA-JMA Document 5 Filed 03/30/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
 -3- 18cv542-MMA (JMA)

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

268 (9th Cir. 1982). 

 After careful review, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s Complaint is frivolous and 

void of any plausible claims for relief. See Cafasso, United States ex rel. v. Gen. 

Dynamics C4 Sys., Inc., 637 F.3d 1047, 1058-59 (9th Cir. 2011) (collecting dismissal of 

cases which did not provide a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 

pleader is entitled to relief). The Complaint is largely incoherent and does not provide a 

statutory or legal basis for Plaintiff’s claims. For example, it appears that Plaintiff claims 

to have been evicted from his home ten years ago for writing “the truth about” 

Defendant’s “electrical energy usage.” See Complaint at 2. Moreover, Plaintiff attaches 

to his Complaint legal documents from his related 2012 case, a news article, DMV 

records, a cartoon, and a photograph. See Complaint. Although the Court is sympathetic 

to Plaintiff’s apparent unfortunate circumstances, the allegations set forth in the 

Complaint do not state a valid claim upon which relief can be granted. Furthermore, 

Plaintiff fails to provide any basis for the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction over the 

action. Because “it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be 

cured by amendment,” the Court DISMISSES the complaint with prejudice.

2

 Franklin 

v. Murphy, 245 F.2d 1221, 1228 n.9 (9th Cir. 1984). The Clerk of Court is instructed to 

close the case and enter judgment accordingly. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 30, 2018

 _____________________________ 

 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO 

United States District Judge 

                                               

2

 As such, the Court DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel. See Doc. No. 

2. 

Case 3:18-cv-00542-MMA-JMA Document 5 Filed 03/30/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3