Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01771/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01771-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

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 - 11cv1771 WQH (RBB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ARINA V. DONATO-GATTO,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 11cv1771 WQH (RBB)

ORDER

vs.

BENJAMIN ANDREW GATTO,

Defendant.

HAYES, Judge: 

The matters before the Court are the Order to Show Cause issued by the Court, the

Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 2) and the Motion for Appointment

of Counsel (ECF No. 3) filed by Plaintiff Arina V. Donato-Gatto.

I. Background

August 9, 2011, Plaintiff Arina V. Donato-Gatto, proceeding pro se, initiated this action

by filing the “Complaint for Breach of Contract (I-864 Affidavit of Support).” (ECF No. 1).

Plaintiff alleges that on September 29, 2000, she married Defendant Benjamin Gatto in Korea.

On August 6, 2001, Defendant Gatto entered into a form I-864 affidavit of support listing the

sponsored immigrants as Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s son. On September 20, 2007, Plaintiff and

Defendant dissolved the marriage. Plaintiff alleges that “[o]n February 23, 2010, [Plaintiff] was

denied her request for Calworks based upon [Defendant’s] sponsorship of her.” Id. at 1.

Plaintiff alleges that “[s]ince the date of the [dissolution of the marriage, Defendant] has never

Case 3:11-cv-01771-WQH-RBB Document 7 Filed 09/13/11 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

- 2 - 11cv1771 WQH (RBB)

provided any support pursuant to the requirements of the affidavit of support form I-864 to

[Plaintiff] or [Plaintiff’s son].” Id. at 2. Plaintiff has completed a civil cover sheet in which

she states that the basis of the Court’s jurisdiction over this matter is pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1332 and that she demands $58,840.00. Id. at 3. 

II. Order to Show Cause 

On August 11, 2011, this Court issued an Order stating: 

As the party seeking to invoke the jurisdiction of this court, Plaintiff

bears the burden of establishing the ‘actual existence of subject matter

jurisdiction.’ See Thompson v. McComb, 99 F.3d 352, 353 (9th Cir.

1996). ‘Subject matter jurisdiction based upon diversity of citizenship

requires that no defendant have the same citizenship as any plaintiff.’

Tosco Corp. v. Communities for a Better Environment, 236 F.3d 495,

499 (9th Cir. 2001). 

... Plaintiff has failed to allege facts to show that this action involves a matter in controversy which exceeds $75,000 and that the

citizenship of the parties are diverse. Plaintiff is hereby ORDERED

TO SHOW CAUSE why this case should not be dismissed for lack of

subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff shall respond to this order on or

before September 12, 2011. If Plaintiff fails to respond or fails to

establish that this Court has jurisdiction this case will be dismissed

without prejudice. 

(ECF No. 4).

On August 19, 2011, Plaintiff filed an “Amendment to Complaint” which responds

to the Order to Show Cause and states: “The basis for this Court’s jurisdiction is not diversity,

but federal question jurisdiction to enforce an I-864, Affidavit of Support, under §213A of the

Immigration and Nationality Act.” (ECF no. 6 at 1). 

“A Form I-864 is a legally enforceable contract between the sponsor and both the

United States Government and the sponsored immigrant.” Shumye v. Felleke, 555 F. Supp. 2d

1020, 1023 (N.D. Cal. 2008). “An action to enforce an affidavit of support executed under

subsection (a) of this section may be brought against the sponsor in any appropriate court– (1)

by a sponsored alien, with respect to financial support.” 8 U.S.C. § 1183a(e)(1); see also Davis

v. United States, 499 F.3d 590, 594-95 (6th Cir. 2007); Montgomery v. Montgomery, 764 F.

Supp. 2d 328, 334 n.5 (D. N.H. 2011) (finding that a claim to enforce an affidavit of support

presents a federal question). The Court finds that Plaintiff has adequately established the

existence of subject matter jurisdiction based on federal question. 

Case 3:11-cv-01771-WQH-RBB Document 7 Filed 09/13/11 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

- 3 - 11cv1771 WQH (RBB)

III. In Forma Pauperis

All parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in a district court of the

United States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of $350.

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

entire fee only if the plaintiff is granted 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).

In her declaration accompanying the Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, Plaintiff

states that she is not currently employed and was last employed in November 2009 earning

$300 per week. (ECF No. 2 at 2). Plaintiff states that in the last twelve months her son has

received social security benefits and she has received two weeks of unemployment benefits

in the amount of $368. Id. Plaintiff states that she has no money in her checking account.

Plaintiff states that she does not have any other significant assets such as a vehicle, real estate,

stocks, bonds or securities. Plaintiff states that she supports her son in the amount of $150 per

week and has debts for “evictions, medical bills, dental bills, [and] cosmetology school.” Id.

at 2-3. 

The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s declaration of assets and finds it is sufficient to

show that Plaintiff is unable to pay the fees or post securities required to maintain this action.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 2) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)

is GRANTED.

Notwithstanding Plaintiff’s indigence, a complaint filed by any person proceeding in

forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) is also subject to mandatory review and sua

sponte dismissal to the extent it “is frivolous or malicious; fails to state a claim on which relief

may be granted; or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.”

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii); Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (per

curiam); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). Upon review of

allegations in Plaintiff’s Complaint the Court finds they are sufficient to satisfy the

requirements of section 1915(e)(2)(B).

IV. Motion for Appointment of Counsel

Case 3:11-cv-01771-WQH-RBB Document 7 Filed 09/13/11 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

- 4 - 11cv1771 WQH (RBB)

Generally, a person does not have a right to counsel in a civil case. See Campbell v.

Burt, 141 F.3d 927, 931 (9th Cir.1998); Ivey v. Board of Regents of the University of Alaska,

673 F.2d 266, 269 (9th Cir.1982). A federal court does not have the authority to “make

coercive appointments of counsel.” Mallard v. United States District Court, 490 U.S. 296, 310

(1989). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), “[t]he court may request an attorney to represent

any person unable to afford counsel.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). The Court has discretion in

deciding whether to request that an attorney provide pro bono representation. Solis v. Los

Angeles, 514 F.3d 946, 958 (9th Cir. 2008). In exercising this discretion the Court must

consider Plaintiff’s ability to represent herself, the complexity of the case, and the merits of

Plaintiff’s claims. See id.; Agyeman v. Corrs. Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103-04 (9th Cir.

2004). “Counsel should only be appointed in exceptional circumstances . . . .” Wood v.

Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335 (9th Cir. 1990). “[D]ifficulties which any litigant would

have in proceeding pro se . . . do not indicate exceptional factors.” Id. at 1335-36.

Plaintiff has demonstrated in her filings that she is capable of doing legal research,

presenting arguments in writing, and that she has an understanding of the issues in this case.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel is DENIED without prejudice.

V. Conclusion

Plaintiff’s the Motion for Appointment of Counsel (ECF No. 3) is DENIED.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis is GRANTED. (ECF No. 2). The

Clerk of the Court is directed to issue a summons and provide Plaintiff with the summons,

certified copies of both this Order and the Complaint, and a blank U.S. Marshal Form 285.

Plaintiff shall complete the U.S. Marshal Form 285, and forward the Form 285 along with the

designated copies of this Order and the Complaint to the U.S. Marshal. The U.S. Marshal shall

serve a copy of the Complaint and summons upon the Defendant as directed by Plaintiff on the

U.S. Marshal Form 285.

DATED: September 13, 2011

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

Case 3:11-cv-01771-WQH-RBB Document 7 Filed 09/13/11 Page 4 of 4