Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-02363/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-02363-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: Americans with Disabilities 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 - 08cv2363

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CAROLYN M. ERNEST,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 08-CV-2363 H (POR)

ORDER

(1) GRANTING MOTION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS

(2) SUA SPONTE DISMISSING

COMPLAINT UNDER 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)

(3) DENYING WITHOUT

PREJUDICE MOTION TO

APPOINT COUNSEL

vs.

UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX, DR.

SOPHIE HSIA, DR. DAVID L. HALL,

Defendant.

On December 19, 2008, Plaintiff Carolyn Ernest filed a complaint against Defendants

University of Phoenix, Dr. Sophie Hsia and Dr. David Hall alleging violations of the

Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. (Doc. No. 1.) Before the Court

are Plaintiff’s motions to appoint counsel (Doc. No. 2.) and to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc.

No. 3.). For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma

pauperis, sua sponte DISMISSES Plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice, and DENIES

without prejudice Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel. Plaintiff may file an amended

complaint no later than 30 days after the date of this order

/ / /

Case 3:08-cv-02363-H-POR Document 4 Filed 12/29/08 Page 1 of 4
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 - 08cv2363

I. Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

A party instituting a civil action in a district court is required to pay a filing fee of $350.

28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed despite a plaintiff’s failure to prepay the entire

fee only if the court grants the plaintiff 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). Plaintiff has

submitted a declaration indicating that her sole income consists of $932.00 per month from a

Veteran Disability Pension. Plaintiff’s checking and savings accounts carry a total balance of

$72.00. Accordingly, the Court concludes that Plaintiff is unable to pay the court filing fee.

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis.

II. Sua Sponte Screening Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)

Proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), a district court must dismiss a case sua sponte

if it determines that the action fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(B); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000). Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 8 requires a plaintiff to “plead a short and plain statement of the elements of his or

her claim, identifying the transaction or occurrence giving rise to the claim and the elements

of the prima facie case.” Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 840 (9th Cir. 2000).

This statement must be sufficient to “give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff’s claim

is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957). The

factual allegations of a complaint must be “enough to raise a right to relief above the

speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1965 (2007). A plaintiff

must plead more than conclusory allegations to show “plausible liability” and avoid dismissal.

Id. at 1966 n.5.

In this case, the complaint alleges “unequal treatment and unequal learning conditions”

under the Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. However, Plaintiff does

not sufficiently explain what the Defendants have done that renders them liable under these

statutes. Plaintiff has not indicated which statutory requirements Defendants are supposed to

have violated. As it stands, Plaintiff’s complaint does not give Defendants fair notice of

Plaintiff’s claim and is insufficient to show that Defendants’ liability is plausible.

Case 3:08-cv-02363-H-POR Document 4 Filed 12/29/08 Page 2 of 4
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 - 08cv2363

Additionally, the Court notes that Plaintiff has not alleged facts establishing this Court’s

jurisdiction over any Defendant. Constitutional due process permits a court to exercise

personal jurisdiction over a defendant only if he has “certain minimum contacts” with the

forum “such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and

substantial justice.” Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945) (internal quotes

omitted). The party seeking to invoke the Court’s jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing

that such jurisdiction exists. Scott v. Breeland, 792 F.2d 925, 927 (9th Cir. 1986). Plaintiff’s

complaint fails to demonstrate that any Defendant has such “minimum contacts” with the state

of California.

Similarly, the complaint fails to allege facts showing that venue in this forum is proper.

A court may raise the issue of venue sua sponte when the defendant has not yet responded and

the time for doing so has not yet run. Costlow v. Weeks, 790 F.2d 1486, 1488 (9th Cir. 1986).

The federal statute governing venue states:

A civil action wherein jurisdiction is not founded solely on diversity of

citizenship may, except as otherwise provided by law, be brought only in (1) a

judicial district where any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the same

State, (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions

giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the

subject of the action is situated, or (3) a judicial district in which any defendant

may be found, if there is no district in which the action may otherwise be

brought.

28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). Plaintiff has alleged no facts showing why this action should be heard

in the Southern District of California.

Accordingly, the Court sua sponte DISMISSES Plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Plaintiff may file an amended complaint curing these

deficiencies within 30 days of the date of this order.

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:08-cv-02363-H-POR Document 4 Filed 12/29/08 Page 3 of 4
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

- 4 - 08cv2363

III. Motion to Appoint Counsel

In an in forma pauperis action, a district court “may request an attorney to represent any

person unable to afford counsel.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). The decision whether to appoint

counsel is within the discretion of the court and is “granted only in exceptional circumstances.”

Agyeman v. Corrections Corp. of America, 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting

Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1236 (9th Cir. 1984)). To find exceptional circumstances

warranting court-appointed counsel, the court must evaluate “the likelihood of the plaintiff’s

success on the merits.” Agyeman, 390 F.3d at 1103. In this case, the Court is unable to make

such an evaluation because Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim.

Additionally, Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel appears to be incomplete. Plaintiff

has provided no information concerning any attempt to retain an attorney. The Ninth Circuit

has held that, before appointing counsel, it is proper for a court to consider the efforts made

by the plaintiff to secure counsel on her own. Johnson v. U.S. Treasury Dept., 27 F.3d 415,

416-17 (9th Cir. 1994). Because Plaintiff’s complaint does not demonstrate a likelihood of

success and she has reported no attempt to retain counsel, the Court DENIES without prejudice

Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel. Plaintiff may resubmit the motion along with her

amended complaint.

Conclusion

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis,

DISMISSES without prejudice Plaintiff’s complaint, and DENIES without prejudice Plaintiff’s

motion to appoint counsel. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint consistent with this order

no later than 30 days after the date of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 29, 2008

________________________________

MARILYN L. HUFF, District Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 3:08-cv-02363-H-POR Document 4 Filed 12/29/08 Page 4 of 4