Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00095/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00095-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 42:1983cv Civil Rights Act - Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights

---

– 1 – 18-cv-0095 DMS (NLS)

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

TINA LOUISE ROBERTS,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 18-cv-0095 DMS (NLS)

ORDER (1) GRANTING MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA 

PAUPERIS AND (2) DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE FOR FAILING TO 

STATE A CLAIM UPON WHICH 

RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED 

PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)

v.

VICTIM RIGHT PROGRAM et al.,

Defendants.

Plaintiff Tina Louise Roberts, a nonprisoner proceeding pro se, filed a 

Complaint against Defendants Victim Right Program, Micheal P. Sherbondy, Paul 

Oh, William M. Hernandez, Nathani I. Janning, Jeremy A. Margolis, Marco L. Perez 

Marco, James W. Hankel, Nathan S. Rustvold, Carlos Munoz, Dorinda K. Dodd, 

Benjamin A. Hall, Brooke Lawson, Elizabeth J. Ortiz, Loria Black, Ida T. Soliven, 

and Richard G. Freeman. Plaintiff has not paid the $400 civil filing fee required to 

commence this action, but rather, has filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis 

(“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

A. Motion to Proceed IFP

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), a court may authorize the commencement of 

Case 3:18-cv-00095-DMS-NLS Document 5 Filed 01/22/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
– 2 – 18-cv-0095 DMS (NLS)

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

a suit without prepayment of fees if plaintiffs submit an affidavit, including a 

statement of all their assets, showing that they are unable to pay filing fees. See 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(a). Here, Plaintiff has submitted an affidavit sufficiently showing

that she lacks the financial resources to pay filing fees. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s

motion to proceed IFP is granted. 

B. Sua Sponte Screening

Any complaint filed pursuant to the IFP provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), is 

subject to a mandatory and sua sponte review and dismissal by the Court, if it finds 

the Complaint is “frivolous, malicious, failing to state a claim upon which relief may 

be granted, or seeking monetary relief from a defendant immune from such relief.” 

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

(“[T]he provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) are not limited to prisoners.”). 

As currently pleaded, Plaintiff’s Complaint is subject to sua sponte dismissal 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) because it fails to state a claim upon which relief 

may be granted. The Complaint is comprised of a single unintelligible paragraph 

that fails to allege any legal basis under which Plaintiff is entitled to relief. The 

allegations in the Complaint are insufficient to put Defendants on notice of the 

claims against them, as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. Moreover, 

the Complaint also fails to allege a basis for federal court subject matter jurisdiction. 

Accordingly, the Court sua sponte dismisses the Complaint. The Clerk of Court is 

directed to close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 22, 2018

Case 3:18-cv-00095-DMS-NLS Document 5 Filed 01/22/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2