Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-01308/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-01308-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights 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 05cv1308

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PRINCESS M. GASPAR,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 05cv1308 BTM (JMA)

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT

vs.

VETERANS ADMINISTRATION

HOSPITAL OF LA JOLLA, CALIFORNIA,

Defendant.

In June 2005, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint, accompanied by motions

to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) and for appointment of counsel. In an order filed July

11, 2005, the Court denied the motion for appointment of counsel, granted the motion to

proceed IFP, and dismissed the complaint for failure to allege a cause of action. The Court

granted Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint by August 5, 2005.

On August 9, 2005, Plaintiff filed a very confusing document which was docketed as

a Request for Counsel. [See Doc. #6.] Plaintiff subsequently sent three letters to the Court

requesting, inter alia, to refile her previously dismissed case (95cv3683), for copies of

documents, and for the Court to settle this matter. All filings from Plaintiff are difficult to

decipher and only two of the three letters were even accepted for filing, despite their noncompliance with local rules.

The Court has reviewed the previously submitted documents [Docs. #6, 9, and 11] in

an effort to determine whether Plaintiff’s case may proceed. A review of Plaintiff’s August

Case 3:05-cv-01308-BTM-JMA Document 12 Filed 05/14/07 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 1

 The complaint was also filed after the August 5, 2005 deadline set in the Court’s

previous order.

2 05cv1308

9, 2005 filing reveals that, while it does again request that counsel be assigned, it also

purports to be an amended complaint. The document appears to be an attempt to address

the pleading deficiencies identified in the Court’s July 11, 2005 order. For instance, the order

directed: “Plaintiff must submit why this Court has jurisdiction to hear this case and whether

the applicable statute of limitations renders this case untimely. Plaintiff must also inform the

Court of the correct spelling of her name.” [Doc. #4 at 2.] Plaintiff’s August 9 filing indicated:

“Plaintiff has jurisdiction and United States District Court of Southern Calif has jurisdiction

reason #1 The case was originally filed in your court, #2 The Plaintiff in your Town & State.”

[Doc. #6 at 3.] She also indicated that the proper spelling of her name was “Princess Marie

Gaspar.” [Id. at 4.] Accordingly, the Court has determined that it is appropriate to treat

Plaintiff’s August 9, 2005 filing as a first amended complaint, along with a renewed request

for counsel.

The amended complaint, however, continues to suffer from pleading deficiencies.1

In particular, while Plaintiff has indicated that, “since the day she was administered

medication [she] has suffered permanent eye injury, neurological damage, hearing loss on

& off and permanent heart problems,” she has not specified who administered her

medication. If it is Plaintiff’s contention that the party administering the medication was an

employee of the United States Government, and she wishes to proceed with a complaint

against the Government, she must also allege that she has complied with the requirements

of the Federal Tort Claims Act. See 28 U.S.C. § 2675. Finally, her complaint is not in the

proper form specified by Fed. R. Civ. P. 8, which requires that a pleading contain: “(1) a short

and plain statement of the grounds upon which the court’s jurisdiction depends . . ., (2) a

short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and (3)

a demand for judgment for the relief the pleader seeks.”

Plaintiff is hereby granted leave to file a second amended complaint, which corrects

the deficiencies identified above. Plaintiff is further directed to consult the Local Rules for

Case 3:05-cv-01308-BTM-JMA Document 12 Filed 05/14/07 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 05cv1308

this Court and any amended complaint should conform to Civil Local Rule 5.1. The rule

requires that: (1) pleadings be legible; (2) statements be made in numbered paragraphs,

which are limited to a single set of circumstances; and (3) the title page include a brief

designation of the document’s nature, in this case “Second Amended Complaint.” In

addition, Plaintiff is directed to comply with Civil Local Rule 15.1, which requires that any

amended pleading be “complete in itself without reference to the superseded pleading.”

Any amended complaint must be filed within 30 days of entry of this order. If

Plaintiff fails to file a second amended complaint within 30 days, or the complaint fails to

conform to the requirements specified above, this case will be dismissed.

As the Court has indicated that it deems Plaintiff’s August 9, 2005 filing to include a

renewed request for counsel, the Court hereby DENIES such request, without prejudice, for

the same reasons specified in its prior order. Plaintiff has not demonstrated any exceptional

circumstances warranting the appointment of counsel. Moreover, while the Court has

previously determined that Plaintiff has limited financial resources, Plaintiff has made no

showing of her attempts to secure counsel on her own, and the Court is unable to assess the

meritoriousness of Plaintiff’s claim at this juncture due to the deficiencies of Plaintiff’s

previous pleadings. See Ivey v. Board of Regents of University of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 269

(9th Cir. 1982).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 14, 2007

Hon. Barry Ted Moskowitz

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-01308-BTM-JMA Document 12 Filed 05/14/07 Page 3 of 3