Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00533/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00533-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1331fr Fed. Question: Fraud

---

1

3:19-cv-533-BTM-RBB

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

HUSSAIN D. VAHIDALLAH,

Plaintiff,

v.

FARMERS INSURANCE, 

Defendant.

Case No.: 3:19-cv-533-BTM-RBB

ORDER GRANTING IFP MOTION, 

DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED 

COMPLAINT, AND DENYING 

MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF 

COUNSEL

[ECF Nos. 4, 5, 6]

Before the Court is Plaintiff Vahidallah’s First Amended Complaint (FAC),

Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (IFP), Motion for Appointment of 

Counsel, and Ex-Parte Communication. (ECF Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7).

I. IFP

Upon review of Plaintiff’s affidavit in support of his IFP Motion, the Court 

finds that Plaintiff has made a sufficient showing of inability to pay the filing fee 

required to prosecute this action. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s 

Motion to proceed IFP. 

II. Failure To State a Claim

Although Plaintiff may proceed IFP, the Court DISMISSES the FAC for 

Case 3:19-cv-00533-BTM-RBB Document 9 Filed 05/21/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

3:19-cv-533-BTM-RBB

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

failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). The FAC is unintelligible and does not appear to state a 

coherent, plausible claim for relief. 

The FAC must be dismissed because it does not establish subject matter 

jurisdiction. Under a generous interpretation of the pleading, Plaintiff appears to 

allege civil rights violations arising out of an insurance coverage dispute. But an

insurance coverage dispute does not by itself raise federal questions, and 

because Defendant Farmers Insurance is not a state actor, Plaintiff’s passing 

reference to civil rights does not raise federal questions either. The FAC does 

not set forth an intelligible basis for its claim to $200,000 in punitive damages, or 

otherwise allege that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. There are 

also no allegations that Plaintiff and Defendant are citizens of different states.

The FAC thus fails to set forth a basis for either federal question jurisdiction or 

diversity jurisdiction. 

Accordingly, the Court dismisses the FAC for failure to state a claim upon 

which relief may be granted. 

III. Appointment of Counsel 

The Court also DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel. 

“There is generally no constitutional right to counsel in civil cases.” United States 

v. Sardone, 94 F.3d 1233, 1236 (9th Cir. 1996). However, a court may under 

“exceptional circumstances” exercise its discretion and “request an attorney to 

represent any person unable to afford counsel.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d); Wilborn v. 

Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986). A finding of exceptional 

circumstances requires the court to consider (1) “the likelihood of success on the 

merits” and (2) “the ability of the [Plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of 

the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id. “Neither of these issues is 

dispositive and both must be viewed together before reaching a decision.” Id. at 

1331. 

Case 3:19-cv-00533-BTM-RBB Document 9 Filed 05/21/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

3:19-cv-533-BTM-RBB

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

As discussed above, the Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction 

over the insurance coverage dispute, and Plaintiff is unlikely to succeed on the 

merits of his claim. The Court declines to exercise discretion and appoint 

counsel.

IV. Ex-Parte Communication

Plaintiff submitted a supplemental pleading that is unintelligible. (ECF No. 

7). The Court construes it as an ex-parte communication and declines to rule on 

it as a Motion. 

V. Conclusion

The Court GRANTS the Motion to Proceed IFP and DENIES the Motion for 

Appointment of Counsel. The Court DISMISSES the FAC without prejudice and 

with leave to amend. Plaintiff has thirty days from the entry of this order to file a 

Second Amended Complaint. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 21, 2019

Case 3:19-cv-00533-BTM-RBB Document 9 Filed 05/21/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3