Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-02682/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-02682-0/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 73, plaintiff has expressly

consented that all proceedings in this matter may be heard and finally adjudicated by the

undersigned.

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT CARMELO TORRE,

Plaintiff,

 v.

THE CITY OF SANTA CRUZ, CALIFORNIA,

Defendant. /

No. C 07-02682 HRL

ORDER (1) DENYING WITHOUT

PREJUDICE APPLICATION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS; AND

(2) DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND

[Re: Docket No. 2]

On May 21, 2007, plaintiff filed a complaint along with an application to proceed in

forma pauperis.

1

 He contests a $25 parking ticket issued by defendant City of Santa Cruz

(“City”). In essence, he appears to allege that the ticket was issued in violation of his civil

rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because (a) he was parked in a privately owned lot and (b) the

City fined him without first holding a jury trial.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, a district court may authorize the commencement of a

civil action in forma pauperis if the court is satisfied that the would-be plaintiff cannot pay the

filing fees necessary to pursue the action. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). However, a court may deny

in forma pauperis status under certain circumstances, including when the underlying complaint

sought to be filed is frivolous or when it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); O’Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 616 (9th Cir 1990).

*E-FILED: 7/5/2007*

Case 5:07-cv-02682-HRL Document 6 Filed 07/05/07 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Local governments are “persons” subject to liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 where an

official policy or custom causes a constitutional tort. See Monell v. Dep't of Social Servs., 436

U.S. 658, 690 (1978). Here, the complaint does not plead facts as to the existence of an

unconstitutional policy or custom which would give rise to municipal liability. Accordingly, IT

IS ORDERED THAT:

Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED WITHOUT

PREJUDICE and the complaint is DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Any amended

complaint shall be filed no later than August 6, 2007. The court will dismiss this case without

prejudice if a timely amended complaint is not filed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

 

HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

July 5, 2007

Case 5:07-cv-02682-HRL Document 6 Filed 07/05/07 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

A copy of this document will be mailed to:

Robert Carmelo Torre

P.O. Box 307

Santa Cruz, CA 95061

Dated: _____________________________

Chambers of Magistrate Judge Lloyd

7/5/07 /s/

Case 5:07-cv-02682-HRL Document 6 Filed 07/05/07 Page 3 of 3