Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-00780/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-00780-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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 - 10cv780

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ENID RISA BROWN,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 10cv780-MMA(WVG)

vs. ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS;

[Doc. No. 2]

DENYING AS MOOT REQUEST

FOR APPOINTMENT OF

COUNSEL;

[Doc. No. 3]

DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND

FED EX OFFICE,

Defendant.

Plaintiff Enid Risa Brown, proceeding pro se, has filed a complaint alleging discrimination

by a Fed Ex office in La Jolla, California. With the complaint, Plaintiff 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). Plaintiff’s declaration shows she has insufficient income and assets to pay the filing fee. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to proceed IFP [Doc. No. 2] is granted.

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

Case 3:10-cv-00780-MMA-WVG Document 4 Filed 04/26/10 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 - 10cv780

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). 

It appears that Plaintiff is attempting to state a cause of action under the Americans with

Disabilities Act (“ADA”), Plaintiff states that she is disabled and she alleges that Defendant, doing

business as a “Fed Ex Office” in La Jolla, California, discriminated against her by not permitting her

service dog to enter the store with her on two occasions. Under the ADA, no “entity shall

discriminate against a qualified individual with a disability because of the disability of such

individual.” 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a). “Disability” is defined as a “physical or mental impairment that

substantially limits one or more major life activities of such individual.” 42 U.S.C. § 12102(1)(A).

“Major life activities include, but are not limited to, caring for oneself, performing manual tasks,

seeing, hearing, eating, sleeping, walking, standing, lifting, bending, speaking, breathing, learning,

reading, concentrating, thinking, communicating, and working.” 42 U.S.C. § 12102(2)(A).

Plaintiff here fails to allege exactly what disability she suffers from and states only in a conclusory

manner her allegation of discrimination regarding her service dog. Plaintiff must state more than

just a conclusory allegation in order to support her claim. In addition to not describing her

disability, Plaintiff fails to show how her disability impairs one of her major life activities. 

Therefore, Plaintiff’s claim under the ADA is dismissed. 

In addition, Plaintiff checked the box next to “civil rights” on her complaint cover sheet. To

state a claim pursuant to § 1983, a plaintiff must plead that a defendant acted under color of state

law at the time the act complained of was committed and that the defendant deprived the plaintiff of

rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States. Gibson v.

United States, 781 F.2d 1334, 1338 (9th Cir. 1986). The statute plainly requires that there be an

actual connection or link between the actions of the defendants and the deprivation alleged to have

been suffered by plaintiff. See Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo

Case 3:10-cv-00780-MMA-WVG Document 4 Filed 04/26/10 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 - 10cv780

v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976). Plaintiff’s complaint fails to allege any facts to support a civil rights

claim, in particular, how Defendant, a non-governmental company, may have been acting under

color of state law when refusing to allow her dog inside the store. Therefore, to the extent Plaintiff

alleges a violation of her civil rights, the claim is dismissed. 

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis [Doc. No. 2] is

GRANTED. Further, the complaint is DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. As such, the

Court DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiff’s Request for Appointment of Counsel [Doc. No. 3]. Plaintiff

is granted thirty (30) days from the date this Order is “Filed” in which to file an amended complaint

in compliance with this Order. Plaintiff’s amended complaint must be complete in itself without

reference to the superseded pleading. See S.D. Cal. Civ. L. R. 15.1. 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. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 26, 2010

Hon. Michael M. Anello

United States District Judge

Case 3:10-cv-00780-MMA-WVG Document 4 Filed 04/26/10 Page 3 of 3