Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-02313/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-02313-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 18:1962 Racketeering (RICO) Act

---

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 - 09cv2313-MMA (RBB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GRACE L. SANDOVAL,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 09cv2313-MMA (RBB)

vs. ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS;

[Doc. No. 2]

DENYING REQUEST FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL;

[Doc. No. 3]

DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND

IMPERIAL COUNTY,

Defendant.

Plaintiff Grace L. Sandoval, proceeding pro se, has submitted a complaint alleging RICO and

personal injury claims against Defendant Imperial County. Plaintiff also filed a Motion to Proceed

in Forma Pauperis (“IFP”). (Doc. No. 2.) All parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding

in a United States District Court must pay a filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may

proceed despite a plaintiff’s failure to prepay the fee only if the plaintiff is granted leave to proceed

in forma pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176,

1177 (9th Cir. 1999). Based on the information provided by Plaintiff in support of her IFP motion,

Case 3:09-cv-02313-MMA-RBB Document 4 Filed 10/19/09 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 - 09cv2313-MMA (RBB)

the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion, but solely for the purpose of the motions currently before the

Court. 

The Court is obligated to review a complaint filed IFP and must dismiss it if it determines

that the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted or seeks

monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see

also Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845 (9th Cir. 2001). “[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). 

Plaintiff is attempting to bring a civil action under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt

Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. § 1962(a), (b), (c) and/or (d), and also indicates personal

injury as a cause of action on the Civil Cover Sheet attached to her complaint. (See Complaint, Doc.

No. 1, Civil Cover Sheet.) Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c), “[a]ny person injured in his business or

property by reason of a violation of section 1962 of this chapter may sue therefor in any appropriate

United States district court . . ..” The complaint is not sufficient to state a claim under the civil

RICO statute, nor does it allege an intelligible personal injury cause of action. In a stream-ofconsciousness complaint devoid of any headings or discernible paragraphs, Plaintiff offers an

incomprehensible account of alleged criminal activity. 

“A civil RICO claim requires allegations of the conduct of an enterprise through a pattern of

racketeering activity that proximately caused injury to the plaintiff.” Swartz v. KPMG LLP, 476

F.3d 756, 760-61 (9th Cir. 2007). Specifically, the “elements of a civil RICO claim are as follows:

(1) conduct (2) of an enterprise (3) through a pattern (4) of racketeering activity (known as predicate

acts) (5) causing injury to plaintiff's business or property.” Living Designs, Inc. v. E.I. Dupont de

Nemours & Co., 431 F.3d 353, 361 (9th Cir. 2005). To establish liability, “one must allege and

prove the existence of two distinct entities: (1) a ‘person’; and (2) an ‘enterprise’ that is not simply

the same ‘person’ referred to by a different name.” Id. The allegations in the complaint do not

provide a basis for an inference that the alleged criminal activity was a part of an enterprise or that

the named defendant was engaged in such an enterprise. Accordingly, Plaintiff fails to state a claim

Case 3:09-cv-02313-MMA-RBB Document 4 Filed 10/19/09 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 - 09cv2313-MMA (RBB)

for civil RICO violations against Defendant Farmers Insurance.

Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend. Plaintiff is granted thirty (30)

days leave from the date this order is “Filed” in which to file a first amended complaint. Plaintiff’s

amended complaint must be complete in itself without reference to the superseded pleading. See

S.D. Cal. Civ. L. R. 15.1. Defendants not named and all claims not re-alleged in the amended

complaint will be deemed to have been waived. See King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir.

1987). Further, if Plaintiff’s amended complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be

granted, it may be dismissed without further leave to amend. Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of

counsel [Doc. No. 3] is DENIED without prejudice to refiling it together with the amended

complaint. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 19, 2009

Hon. Michael M. Anello

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-02313-MMA-RBB Document 4 Filed 10/19/09 Page 3 of 3