Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02725/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02725-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Personal Injury

---

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

JOHN PAUL FREITAG,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 11-CV-2725 - IEG (JMA)

ORDER:

(1) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO PROCEED IN

FORMA PAUPERIS; 

[Doc. No. 2]

(2) SUA SPONTE DISMISSING

COMPLAINT; AND

[Doc. No. 1]

(3) DENYING WITHOUT

PREJUDICE AS MOOT MOTIONS

FOR APPOINTMENT OF

COUNSEL

[Doc. Nos. 3, 5]

vs.

R. PADILLA, OFC Harbor Police, M. RICH,

OFC Harbor Police,

Defendants.

Plaintiff commenced this action on November 22, 2011, appearing to allege that his civil

rights were violated. [Doc. No. 1.] Along with his complaint, Plaintiff submitted a motion to

proceed in forma pauperis and a motion for the appointment of counsel. [Doc. Nos. 2-3.] Shortly

after, Plaintiff also filed a “motion for an emergency order for an attorney due to health problems.”

[Doc. No. 5.] Having considered Plaintiff’s submissions, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff leave to

proceed in forma pauperis, DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s complaint, and

- 1 - 11cv2725

Case 3:11-cv-02725-IEG-JMA Document 6 Filed 12/01/11 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

DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiff’s motions for the appointment of counsel.

DISCUSSION

I. MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

All parties instituting any civil action, suit, or proceeding in a district court, except an

application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of $350. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a).

However, an action may proceed despite failure to pay the filing fee if the party is granted an in

forma pauperis (“IFP”) status. See Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). The

Court may grant IFP status to any party who demonstrates that he or she is unable to pay such fees

or give security therefor. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

In the present case, having reviewed Plaintiff’s motion and declaration in support of the

motion, the Court finds that Plaintiff has made a sufficient showing of inability to pay the required

filing fees. See Rodriguez, 169 F.3d at 1177. Accordingly, good cause appearing, the Court

GRANTS Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

II. INITIAL SCREENING PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)

After granting IFP status, the Court must dismiss the case if the complaint “fails to state a

claim on which relief may be granted” or is “frivolous.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see also Lopez

v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (noting that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) “not

only permits but requires” the court to sua sponte dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint that fails

to state a claim). In order to properly state a claim for relief, “a complaint must contain sufficient

factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v.

Iqbal,–U.S.–, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). A complaint must contain more than a “labels and

conclusions” or a “formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action;” it must contain factual

allegations sufficient to “raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v.

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). “‘The pleading must contain something more . . . than . . . a

statement of facts that merely creates a suspicion [of] a legally cognizable right of action.’” Id.

A complaint is frivolous “where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke

v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989) (superseded on other grounds as stated in Lopez v. Smith,

203 F.3d 1122, 1126 (9th Cir. 2000)). Where a complaint fails to state “any constitutional or

- 2 - 11cv2725

Case 3:11-cv-02725-IEG-JMA Document 6 Filed 12/01/11 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

statutory right that was violated, nor asserts any basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction,” there

is no “arguable basis in law” under Neitzke, and the court on its own initiative may decline to

permit the plaintiff to proceed and dismiss the complaint under Section 1915. Cato v. United

States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995).

As currently pleaded, Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a cognizable claim and is frivolous

to the extent it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact. Plaintiff’s complaint is one paragraph and

consists primarily of a string of conclusory statements. [See Compl. (“Unlawful Arrest, deprivation

of civil libert[ies], Civil torts, physical harm with intentional emotional distress, Embarrassment

with harassment by other personnel, Deprivation of public service to protect & serve, Deprivation

of public fishing . . . .”).] However, Plaintiff provides no facts to support any of these conclusion or

facts establishing a cause of action against the two Defendants. A complaint must contain more

than mere “labels and conclusion.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.

Even affording Plaintiff’s complaint the special consideration given to pro se claimants, his

allegations fail to present a cognizable legal theory or facts sufficient to support a cognizable legal

theory against the Defendants. Although the Court must assume Plaintiff can prove the facts he

alleges in his complaint, the Court may not “supply essential 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). 

Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s complaint as frivolous

and for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

III. MOTIONS FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

In addition to his complaint, Plaintiff has also filed two motions for appointment of counsel. 

[Doc. Nos. 3, 5.] Because the Court dismisses Plaintiff’s complaint in its entirety without

prejudice, Plaintiff’s motions for appointment of counsel are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE

as moot.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed in Forma

Pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), but DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s

complaint as frivolous and for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The Court

- 3 - 11cv2725

Case 3:11-cv-02725-IEG-JMA Document 6 Filed 12/01/11 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

also DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE as moot Plaintiff’s motions for appointment of counsel.

Plaintiff is GRANTED thirty (30) days from the date this Order is filed to file a First

Amended Complaint addressing the deficiencies of the pleading set forth above. Plaintiff is

cautioned his First Amended Complaint must be complete in itself, without relying on references to

the original Complaint. Plaintiff is further cautioned any defendant not named or claim not

re-alleged will be considered waived. See King v. Attiyeh, 814 F.3d 1172, 1177-79 (9th Cir. 1996).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 1, 2011 ______________________________

IRMA E. GONZALEZ, Chief Judge

United States District Court

- 4 - 11cv2725

Case 3:11-cv-02725-IEG-JMA Document 6 Filed 12/01/11 Page 4 of 4