Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00834/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00834-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 350
Nature of Suit: Motor Vehicle Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 18:1962 Racketeering (RICO) 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 - 11cv834

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GRACE L. SANDOVAL,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 11-CV-834 JLS (POR)

ORDER: (1) GRANTING MOTION

TO PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS; (2) DENYING AS

MOOT REQUEST FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL;

(3) DISMISSING COMPLAINT

WITH PREJUDICE

(Doc. Nos. 2, 3)

vs.

MANUEL AMPUL,

Defendant.

Plaintiff Grace L. Sandoval, proceeding pro se, has filed a complaint (Doc. No. 1), along with

a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) (Doc. No. 2) and a request for appointment of

counsel (Doc. No. 3). Based on the information provided by Plaintiff, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(a),the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed IFP. The Court is obligated to

review a complaint filed IFP sua sponte and must dismiss the action if it determines that the complaint

is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim for relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). After careful

review, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s complaint is frivolous and void of any plausible claims for

relief. The complaint is but one in a series of frivolous complaints Plaintiff has filed. Because “it is

absolutely clear that the deficiencies in the complaint could not be cured by amendment,” the Court

DISMISSES the complaint WITH PREJUDICE. Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1228 n.9 (9th

Cir. 1984). As such, the Court DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 22, 2011

Honorable Janis L. Sammartino

United States District Judge

Case 3:11-cv-00834-JLS-POR Document 5 Filed 04/22/11 Page 1 of 1