Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01823/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01823-0/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

18-cv-1823-WQH-KSC

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

JERRY JACKSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

CAR BAHN, LLC,

Defendant.

Case No.: 18-cv-1823-WQH-KSC

ORDER

HAYES, Judge:

On August 3, 2018, Plaintiff Jerry Jackson initiated this action by filing a Complaint

(ECF No. 1) (the “Complaint”) and a Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) (ECF 

No. 3). 

I. IFP

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 IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

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

The affidavit filed by Jackson states “I am unable to pay the costs of these 

proceedings.” (ECF No. 3 at 1). Jackson’s only income is $870.00 a month in 

“[d]isability,” and he has $792.00 of monthly expenses in the form of rent, utilities, food, 

clothing, laundry, and public transportation. Id. at 1, 4. Jackson has no bank accounts. Id.

at 2. Jackson’s Motion to Proceed IFP (ECF No. 2) is GRANTED. 

Case 3:18-cv-01823-WQH-KSC Document 4 Filed 08/28/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

18-cv-1823-WQH-KSC

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

II. Initial Screening

A complaint filed by any person proceeding IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) is 

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); Lopez v. 

Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). This screening standard applies to 

all civil actions filed by plaintiffs proceeding IFP. See Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 

845 (9th Cir. 2001) (per curiam) (“[T]he provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) are not 

limited to prisoners.”).

The standard used to evaluate whether a complaint states a claim is a liberal one. 

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(a)(2) provides “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.” “[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).

Jackson brings the following causes of action against Car Bahn: (1) violation of the 

Americans with Disabilities Act, (2) violation of California Civil Code §§ 51, 54 et seq., 

(3) negligence per se, (4) negligence, (5) declaratory relief, and (6) injunctive relief. 

Compl. at ¶¶ 16–42. Jackson alleges that he is “mobility impaired,” uses a wheelchair, and 

is “classified as having a physical impairment.” Id. at ¶ 10. Jackson alleges that, on or 

about January 8, 2018, he “was denied full and equal access to Car Bahn LLC, dba Grater 

Grilled Cheese Shop . . . because the property was inaccessible to individuals belonging to 

the disabled community who use wheel chairs for mobility.” Id. at ¶ 11. 

Case 3:18-cv-01823-WQH-KSC Document 4 Filed 08/28/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

18-cv-1823-WQH-KSC

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

Upon review, the Court concludes that the Complaint adequately states a claim for 

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

therefore 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

The Motion to Proceed IFP (ECF No. 3) is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court shall 

issue a summons and provide Jackson with the summons, certified copies of both this Order 

and the Complaint, and a blank U.S. Marshal Form 285. Jackson 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 Car Bahn as directed by Jackson on the U.S. Marshal Form 285.

Dated: August 28, 2018

Case 3:18-cv-01823-WQH-KSC Document 4 Filed 08/28/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3