Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01897/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01897-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331cv Fed. Question: Other Civil Rights

---

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

PATSY A. DIXON,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 15CV1897-GPC(WVG)

ORDER:

(1)DENYING PLAINTIFF'S

MOTION TO PROCEED IN

FORMA PAUPERIS; 

[Dkt. No. 2]

(2) SUA SPONTE DISMISSING

PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR

FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM.

v.

CHIEF OF POLICE AT

ESCONDIDO, CA CRAIG CARTER,

ALIAS,

Defendant.

Plaintiff Patsy A. Dixon, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint against the Chief

of Police of Escondido Police Department, and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis

(“IFP”). (Dkt. Nos. 1, 2.) Based on the reasoning below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s

motion to proceed IFP and sua sponte DISMISSES Plaintiff’s complaint for failure to

state a claim on which relief may granted. 

Discussion

A. Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

All parties instituting any civil action, suit, or proceeding in a district court of

the United States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee

- 1 - [15cv1897-GPC(WVG)]

Case 3:15-cv-01897-GPC-WVG Document 3 Filed 09/22/15 Page 1 of 4
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

of $400. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed despite a plaintiff’s failure 1

to prepay the entire fee only if he is granted leave to proceed IFP pursuant to § 1915(a).

See Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 2007); Rodriguez v. Cook,

169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). The plaintiff must submit an affidavit

demonstrating her inability to pay the filing fee, and the affidavit must include a

complete statement of the plaintiff’s assets. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). When a plaintiff

moves to proceed IFP, the court first “grants or denies IFP status based on the

plaintiff’s financial resources alone and then independently determines whether to

dismiss the complaint” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) (“§ 1915(e)(2)”). Franklin

v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1226 n.5 (9th Cir. 1984). 

Here, Plaintiff submitted a declaration reporting thatshe is currently unemployed

and her date of last employment was on August 10, 2008. (Dkt. No. 2 at 2.) Plaintiff

reportsshe receive $2,109.00 per month of SSDI, has remainder ofinherence of $10.37

and about $200.00 in gifts. (Id.) She does not own a motor vehicle but states she owns

real estate with a value around $10 million in Aspen, Colorado. (Id. at 3.) She has no

dependents relying on her for support. (Id.) She has about $10,000 in debt obligations

but $25,000 is as “non-employed.” (Id.) Based on Plaintiff’s representations, she is

able to pay the filing fee, and the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed

IFP. 

B. Sua Sponte Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)

A complaint filed by any person proceeding IFP pursuant to § 1915(a) issubject

to mandatory sua sponte review and dismissal by the Court if it is “frivolous, or

malicious; fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or seeks monetary

relief against a defendant immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B);

Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (“[T]he provisions of 28 U.S.C.

In addition to the $350 statutory fee, civil litigants must pay an additional administrative fee 1

of $50. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) (Judicial Conference Schedule of Fees, District Court Misc. Fee

Schedule, § 14 (eff. Dec. 1, 2014)). The additional $50 administrative fee does not apply to persons

granted leave to proceed IFP. Id.

- 2 - [15cv1897-GPC(WVG)]

Case 3:15-cv-01897-GPC-WVG Document 3 Filed 09/22/15 Page 2 of 4
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

§ 1915(e)(2)(B) are not limited to prisoners.”); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-

27 (9th Cir. 2000). § 1915(e)(2) mandates that a court reviewing a complaint filed

pursuant to the IFP provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915 rule on its own motion to dismiss

before directing that the complaint be served by the U.S. Marshal pursuant to Federal

Rule of Civil Procedures 4(c)(2). Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1127.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), a pleading must contain “a short

and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R.

Civ. P. 8(a)(2). While a plaintiff need not give “detailed factual allegations,” a plaintiff

must plead sufficient facts that, if true, “raise a right to relief above the speculative

level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 545 (2007). To state a claim

upon which relief may be granted “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter,

accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v.

Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 547). A claim is

facially plausible when the factual allegations permit “the court to draw the reasonable

inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. In other words,

“the non-conclusory ‘factual content,’ and reasonable inferences from that content,

must be plausibly suggestive of a claim entitling the plaintiff to relief.” Moss v. U.S.

Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). “Determining whether a complaint

states a plausible claim for relief will . . . be a context-specific task that requires the

reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense.” Iqbal, 556 U.S.

at 679.

Here, as to the named defendant in the caption, Plaintiff alleges the “Chief of

Police is listening always to me in the bathroom here at the Escondido Public Library

and selling it’s rights to Ben Roethlisberger who is Rapist to my sole friend, not, but

Arlene, not, but, authentically Mrs. Darlene Marie McGuffey Madoff Trump, so help

me God.” (Dkt. No. 1 at 1.) Also, she writes that “they are listening to us via website

provided by the Escondido PD Chief of Police. . . .” (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff continues with

allegations concerning another criminal case in state court involving her sons and

- 3 - [15cv1897-GPC(WVG)]

Case 3:15-cv-01897-GPC-WVG Document 3 Filed 09/22/15 Page 3 of 4
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

criminal conduct by officers. However, the allegations are scattered and are not

comprehensible, and fail to state a claim that is plausible on its face. Accordingly, as

currently pled, Plaintiff’s complaint is subject to sua sponte dismissal. Accordingly,

the Court DISMISSES Plaintiff’s complaint for failing to state a claim pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

Conclusion

Based on the above, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to proceed IFP and sua

sponte DISMISSES Plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice for failing to state a claim

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 22, 2015

HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL

United States District Judge

- 4 - [15cv1897-GPC(WVG)]

Case 3:15-cv-01897-GPC-WVG Document 3 Filed 09/22/15 Page 4 of 4