Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-00061/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-00061-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights 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

 These include Robinson v. Hubbard, et al., 07-cv-02051-W (AJB); Robinson v. 1

Hamrick, 07-cv-02203-WQH (BLM); Robinson v. Hubbard, et al., 07-cv-01560-W (CAB);

Robinson v. Burns, 07-cv-01380-IEG (JMA); Robinson v. Burns, 07-cv-01095-H (WMC);

Robinson v. Brohos, 07-cv-00875-W (NLS), Robinson v. Harvey, 06-cv-01455-W (LSP); and

Robinson v. INS, et al., 06-cv-00338-LAB (JMA).

- 1 - 10cv61

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FAUSTINO ROBINSON,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 10cv61-LAB (CAB)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

vs.

TERRY SHAFFER, EDWARD TUY,

Defendant.

Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, filed his complaint in this action without either

paying the filing fee or moving for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). The complaint

was, however, accompanied by several partially-completed pages from an unidentified form,

which may be an application for appointment of counsel.

All parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in a United States District

Court must pay a filing fee. 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 IFP pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(a). See Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999).

Plaintiff has filed numerous other lawsuits in this District, though none recently. In

most cases, he applied for and was granted IFP status. In several other cases, it is unclear 1

Case 3:10-cv-00061-LAB-CAB Document 2 Filed 07/20/10 Page 1 of 3
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 - 10cv61

whether he applied to proceed IFP, or his case was dismissed without the IFP application

having been ruled on.

In view of Plaintiff’s earlier IFP applications, and because the pages he attached to

his complaint give some financial information and are signed under penalty of perjury, the

Court construes them as an application to proceed IFP. The application Plaintiff has no

income or cash, is “unemployable,” has not been employed since 1983. The application,

however, omits key details and explanations. For example, there is no statement regarding

other assets Plaintiff has, nor has Plaintiff explained how he supports himself. The

application says nothing about Plaintiff’s expenses, other than to state that the monthly rent

at the apartment where he lives is $4.60. In all likelihood, this should be $460, although the

question still remains if Plaintiff has no cash or income as he claims, how he is able to pay

rent at all.

The application to proceed IFP is therefore DENIED. Ordinarily, the Court would

simply direct that a new and more complete IFP application be completed or the filing fee

paid. However, the complaint is also inadequate. It makes vague allegations about a

dispute over a rental payment for a mailbox. Plaintiff is apparently alleging Defendants

stopped renting him a mailbox after he stopped paying for it. He appears to argue they were

required to bill him for it but failed to do so. Then, he alleges, they failed to show him respect

and were abusive towards him. He therefore seeks $50,000 in damages. This does not

state a claim for which relief can be granted, and also fails to explain why the Court would

have jurisdiction over this action.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), the Court must, on its own motion, review a complaint

filed by any person proceeding IFP. A complaint must be dismissed by the Court if it 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);

Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126–27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). Because the complaint

neither states a claim under which relief may be granted, nor invokes the Court’s jurisdiction,

it is subject to sua sponte dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

Case 3:10-cv-00061-LAB-CAB Document 2 Filed 07/20/10 Page 2 of 3
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 - 10cv61

The complaint is therefore DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to pay the

filing fee (or to obtain leave to proceed IFP), for failure to state a claim for which relief can

be granted, and for failure to invoke the Court’s jurisdiction.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 19, 2010

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

Case 3:10-cv-00061-LAB-CAB Document 2 Filed 07/20/10 Page 3 of 3