Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00227/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00227-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

JAN WOJTASZEK,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 12-cv-227-MMA (JMA)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS;

[Doc. No. 13]

DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH

PREJUDICE

vs.

TRAMVIEW INVESTORS,

Defendant.

On January 27, 2012, Plaintiff Jan Wojtaszek, proceeding pro se, filed the above-captioned

action against Tramview investors. [Doc. No. 1.] Along with the complaint, Plaintiff filed a

motion to appoint counsel. [Doc. No. 2.] On February 2, 2012, the Court sua sponte dismissed

the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and denied the motion for appointment of counsel

as moot. [Doc. No. 3.] Plaintiff later filed a document which the Court construed as a first

amended complaint (“FAC”). [Doc. No. 9.] Subsequently, the Court ordered Plaintiff to pay the

filing fee or move to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). [Doc. No. 11.] On April 3, 2012,

Plaintiff submitted a motion to proceed IFP. [Doc. No. 13.]

Based on the information provided by Plaintiff, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), the Court

GRANTS Plaintiff’s IFP motion. 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

- 1 - 12-cv-227-MMA (JMA)

Case 3:12-cv-00227-MMA-JMA Document 16 Filed 04/18/12 Page 1 of 2
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

that Plaintiff’s complaint is frivolous and void of any plausible claims for relief. The FAC is

rambling and incoherent and does not provide a statutory or legal basis for Plaintiff’s claims. The

FAC appears to be a document previously filed in the United States Court of Appeals in St. Louis,

Missouri and alleges the same factual allegations as those in the original complaint filed in the

present action. Although the Court is sympathetic to Plaintiff’s apparent unfortunate

circumstances, the allegations set forth in the FAC do not state a valid claim upon which relief can

be granted. Furthermore, Plaintiff still fails to provide any basis for the Court’s subject matter

jurisdiction over the action. Because “it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint

could not be cured by amendment,” the Court DISMISSES the complaint with prejudice. 

Franklin v. Murphy, 245 F.2d 1221, 1228 n.9 (9th Cir. 1984). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 17, 2012

Hon. Michael M. Anello

United States District Judge

- 2 - 12-cv-227-MMA (JMA)

Case 3:12-cv-00227-MMA-JMA Document 16 Filed 04/18/12 Page 2 of 2