Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01308/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01308-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12101 The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990

---

1

18cv1308-WQH-RBB

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

ANTHONY NAVARRO,

Plaintiff,

v.

JJJ GROUP INC dba HARLEY 

GRAY KITCHEN and BAR, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 18cv1308-WQH-RBB

ORDER

HAYES, Judge:

On June 18, 2018, Plaintiff Anthony Navarro initiated this action by filing a 

Complaint (ECF No. 1) and a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 2). 

I. MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

All parties instituting a civil action, suit, or proceeding in a district court of the 

United States, other than a petition for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of 

$400.00. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); CivLR 4.5. An action may proceed despite a party’s 

failure to pay only if the party is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis 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).

Case 3:18-cv-01308-WQH-RBB Document 4 Filed 07/05/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

18cv1308-WQH-RBB

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

The affidavit filed by Plaintiff states that he is unable to pay the costs of these 

proceedings and that he “does not have enough money now to live.” (ECF No. 2 at 1, 2). 

The affidavit states that Plaintiff is unemployed, has an average income of $930 per month 

in disability payments, and does not have any money in a bank account. The affidavit 

states that Plaintiff’s average monthly expenses are around $905. Id. After considering 

Plaintiff’s motion and affidavit, the Court determines that Plaintiff cannot afford to pay the 

filing fee in this case and is eligible to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(a).

II. INITIAL SCREENING OF THE COMPLAINT

A complaint filed by any person proceeding in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(a) is also subject to mandatory review and sua sponte dismissal to the extent it “is 

frivolous or malicious; fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or seeks 

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(e)(2)(B); see Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). The 

standard used to evaluate whether a complaint states a claim is a liberal one, particularly 

when the action has been filed pro se.1 See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). 

However, even a “liberal interpretation . . . may not supply elements of the claim that were 

not initially pled.” Ivey v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th 

Cir. 1982). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 provides that “[a] pleading that states a claim 

for relief must contain ... a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader 

is entitled to relief....” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). “[A] plaintiff’s obligation to provide the

grounds of his entitlement to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a 

formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. 

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quotation omitted).

 

1 Plaintiff is represented by counsel in this action. 

Case 3:18-cv-01308-WQH-RBB Document 4 Filed 07/05/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

18cv1308-WQH-RBB

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

In this case, Plaintiff alleges that he is “mobility impaired,” uses a wheelchair, and 

is “classified as having a physical impairment.” (ECF No. 1 at 5). Plaintiff alleges that he 

was denied “full and equal access to HARLEY GRAY KITCHEN and BAR” on November 

14, 2017 “because the property was inaccessible to individuals belonging to the disabled 

community who use wheel chairs for mobility.” (ECF No. 1 at 5). Plaintiff brings the 

following causes of action against Defendants: (1) violation of Americans with Disabilities 

Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.; (2) violation of California Civil Code §§ 51, 52; (3) 

negligence per se; (4) negligence; (5) declaratory relief; and (6) injunctive relief. (ECF 

No. 1). Upon review, the Court concludes that Plaintiff’s Complaint adequately states a 

claim for purposes of the sua sponte screening required under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). 

Plaintiff is therefore automatically entitled to U.S. Marshal service on his behalf. See 

Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1126-27; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) (“The officers of the court shall issue and 

serve all process, and perform all duties in [IFP] cases.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(2) (providing 

that “service be effected by a United States marshal, deputy United States marshal, or other 

officer specially appointed by the court . . . when the plaintiff is authorized to proceed in 

forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.”).

III. CONCLUSION

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion to proceed in forma pauperis is 

GRANTED. (ECF No. 2). The Clerk of Court shall issue a summons and provide Plaintiff 

with the summons, certified copies of both this Order and the complaint, and a blank U.S. 

Marshal Form 285. Plaintiff shall complete the U.S. Marshal Form 285, and forward the 

Form 285 and the designated copies of this Order and the complaint to the U.S. Marshal. 

The U.S. Marshal shall serve a copy of the complaint and summons upon Defendants as 

directed by Plaintiff on the U.S. Marshal Form 285.

Dated: July 5, 2018

Case 3:18-cv-01308-WQH-RBB Document 4 Filed 07/05/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3