Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-02305/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-02305-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 195
Nature of Suit: Contract Product Liability
Cause of Action: 18:1962 Racketeering (RICO) 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

- 1 - 09CV2305

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GRACE L. SANDOVAL,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 09CV2305-LAB (WVG)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

vs.

BANK OF AMERICA,

Defendant.

Plaintiff filed her complaint in this case on October 16, 2009, along with a motion for

leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) and a motion for appointment of counsel. On

December 3, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why this action should not be

dismissed as fanciful or frivolous. In particular, the Court’s order pointed out what appeared

to be the only possibly non-frivolous claim in her complaint, a claim against Bank of America

based on allegations that its employees conspired to steal her money. The order pointed

out Plaintiff had brought numerous other dismissed actions alleging theft of money from her

bank account. The Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why this action should not be

dismissed as fanciful or frivolous by explaining the relationship, if any, between her claims

of bank theft in this case and the claims she brought in previous cases. The order warned

Plaintiff that if she did not show cause as ordered, the action would be dismissed.

Case 3:09-cv-02305-LAB-WVG Document 7 Filed 12/18/09 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

- 2 - 09CV2305

In response, Plaintiff filed a pleading styled “RICO Case Statement,” which is as

disjointed as her complaint. Between lines of text in the form, which she ignores, she has

hand-written her remarks. The pleading begins, “Yes, many Bank of America employees at

Bank of America, Main Street, Brawley, California, planned to steal money from me . . . .”

It then discusses a massive break-in by other alleged criminals who she says took bank

statements and other documents from her house, kidnaping and injuring her in the process.

She then accuses several other people of stealing the money from her bank account.

In light of the new pleadings, Plaintiff appears to be attempting to litigate claims

arising from a break-in she believes occurred in 1986 (see Complaint at 1–2), which was the

subject of a good deal of previous, now-dismissed, litigation. See, e.g., Sandoval v. Castillo,

08cv1622-WQH (Complaint, Docket no. 1). In addition, the complaint suffers from the defect

of failing to show why Defendant would be liable for any of the alleged harm. Furthermore,

even if Plaintiff had RICO claims against anyone arising from thefts in 1986, those claims

appear to be time-barred. See Pincay v. Andrews, 238 F.3d 1106, 1108 (9 Cir. 2001) th

(explaining that statute of limitations for RICO claims is four years) (citation omitted).

If Plaintiff believes she can amend her complaint to remedy these defects, she must

file her amended complaint no later than the close of business Monday, January 4, 2010.

The amended complaint must be timely filed and comprehensible, and must meet the

requirements set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 or it will be either rejected or dismissed.

For reasons discussed above, the complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 17, 2009

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-02305-LAB-WVG Document 7 Filed 12/18/09 Page 2 of 2