Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_08-cv-00552/USCOURTS-cand-4_08-cv-00552-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JULIO V. LLANOS,

Plaintiff, No. C 08-0552 PJH

v. ORDER DISMISSING 

COMPLAINT

WASHINGTON MUTUAL,

Defendant.

_______________________________/

Before the court is plaintiff Julio V. Llanos’ application to proceed in forma pauperis

and “Petition for Libel of Review of an Administrative Judgment,” both of which were filed

January 25, 2008. 

The Court may authorize a plaintiff to file an action in federal court without

prepayment of fees or security if the plaintiff submits an affidavit showing that he or she is

unable to pay such fees or give security therefor. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). The in forma

pauperis statute also provides that the Court shall dismiss the case if at any time the Court

determines that the allegation of poverty is untrue, or that the action (1) is frivolous or

malicious, (2) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (3) seeks monetary

relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 

Here, plaintiff’s application fails to establish a viable allegation of poverty, and the

petition itself fails to state any claim upon which relief may be granted. First, in his IFP

application, plaintiff states that he is employed by Synergy Companies, and that his gross

salary per month is “$41,700," with a net monthly income of “$30,004.00.” Plaintiff also

indicates that he owns a home, and that he owns two vehicles which are not financed. 

Plaintiff’s monthly debt payments total $310.00. It appears that plaintiff may have made a

Case 4:08-cv-00552-PJH Document 4 Filed 02/01/08 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

common mistake, and listed his yearly gross and monthly incomes, as opposed to his

monthly income. Even so, however, plaintiff’s allegations as a whole make it difficult to

determine whether plaintiff warrants IFP status; a net salary of $2500 per month (based on

a yearly net income of $30,004.00), in view of only $310.00 worth of debt payments per

month, and the fact that plaintiff owns a home and two automobiles, counsel against a

finding of poverty. 

Regardless whether plaintiff can sufficiently allege that his financial status warrants

IFP treatment, however, plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim. Plaintiff alleges, for

example, that he is petitioning the court for a “Review of Foreign Judgment,” without

indicating the foreign judgment for which she seeks review. He also asserts that all parties

are “U.S. Vessels and fit the legal definition of a U.S. Vessel,” such that the “Public Vessels

Act” applies, but never alleges any conduct allegedly falling under the Act. Similarly, she

invokes the First Judiciary Act, Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act, Bills of Lading Act, and

Admiralty Extension Act, without ever clearly defining the nature of any conduct or

grievances that fall under any of these Acts. Finally, while plaintiff seeks relief in relation to

an alleged “agreement/contract” and further seeks to have the court “enforce the

Administrative findings in the perfected agreement,” plaintiff fails to sufficiently identify the

nature of the alleged agreement or any administrative decision. In sum, the court can

discern no basis upon which relief may be granted to plaintiff.

Accordingly, the instant complaint is hereby DISMISSED, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1915(e)(2)(B), and plaintiff’s corresponding application to proceed in forma pauperis is

furthermore DENIED as moot. The dismissal is with prejudice. The clerk shall close the

file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 1, 2008 ______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:08-cv-00552-PJH Document 4 Filed 02/01/08 Page 2 of 2