Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00944/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00944-0/pdf.json

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

---

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

Diana Lee Wallach Lorretz,

Plaintiff,

v.

U.S.A. Government

includes FBI, SSA, Surgeon General, Dept. of

Defense, Homeland Security, United States

Coast Guard, All the Presidents in My

Lifetime since Harry S. Truman Started It and

Hired Nazis to Watch and Dept. of Ed., Law

Enforcement, Dept. of State, 

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 12cv0944 AJB

Order Denying Renewed Motion to

Proceed In Forma Pauperis, Dismissing

First Amended Complaint for Failure to

State a Claim

[Doc. No. 5]

On April 17, 2012, the Plaintiff, Diana Lee Wallach Lorretz, a non-prisoner proceeding pro se,

commenced this action against the United States Government, including the Federal Bureau of

Investigation (“FBI”), Social Security Administration (“SSA”), Surgeon General, Department of

Defense, Homeland Security, United States Coast Guard, all of the Presidents in Plaintiff’s lifetime since

Harry S. Truman started it and hired Nazis to watch and Department of Education, Law Enforcement,

and the Department of State. Plaintiff moved to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1915(a) and argued that an appointment of counsel is required pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1915(e)(1). On April 18, 2012, this Court denied Plaintiff’s motions and dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint

for failure to state a claim. On April 30, 2012, the Plaintiff filed her First Amended Complaint (“FAC”).

1 12cv944

Case 3:12-cv-00944-AJB-MDD Document 7 Filed 05/31/12 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

For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds Plaintiff's renewed motion to proceed IFP insufficient

and sua sponte DISMISSES Plaintiff’s FAC for failure to state a claim. 

I. Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

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 § 1915(e)(2). Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1226 n.5 (9th Cir. 1984). Plaintiff

originally submitted an affidavit in support of the IFP motion indicating that she was unemployed, she

received $952 per month in Social Security Survivor benefits, and had a checking account with $3000

plus dollars and a savings account with $200 plus dollars. Thus, this Court found that Plaintiff did not

meet the § 1915(a) requirements and denied Plaintiff's motion to proceed IFP. 

In Plaintiff’s FAC she includes a sentence that indicates her financial status has changed to $1 in

her savings and $1 in her checking. Plaintiff has failed to submit an affidavit which includes a statement

of all assets as required by § 1915(a). Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff does not meets the §

1915(a) requirements and DENIES Plaintiff's motion to proceed IFP.

II. Sua Sponte Dismissal for Failure to State a Claim

The FAC does not state a specific claim on which relief may be granted. A court may dismiss

the case at any time if it determines the plaintiff failed to state a claim on which relief may be granted

pursuant to § 1915(e)(2). Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998). “A plaintiff must

allege facts, not simply conclusions, that show that an individual was personally involved in the

deprivation of his civil rights.” Id. A court will deny any motion that fails to present a legal and factual

basis. Id. 

In Plaintiff’s original Complaint she failed to state facts against each defendant who allegedly

violated her rights and she refused to provide the facts supporting her claims at that time. As a result,

this Court dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint for failure to state a claim. In the FAC, the Plaintiff asked for

relief from the United States Government in the amount of twelve billion dollars. In the Complaint

Plaintiff alleges, among other things, that defendants “use drugs and put them into plaintiff” and publish

fictional records and books about her. Pl.’s Am. Compl. 1, Doc. No. 5. The FAC also contends that the

FBI “tell[s] plaintiff where to go” and that newspapers report her “contacts.” Id. at 2. The FAC once

2 12cv944

Case 3:12-cv-00944-AJB-MDD Document 7 Filed 05/31/12 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

again fails to state a cognizable claim on which relief can be granted. Plaintiff’s vague allegations that

Defendants tell her where to go, put drugs in her, and write fictional records and books about her fails to

allege specific constitutional or civil rights violations. As a result, Plaintiff has not presented a sufficient

basis for a cognizable claim on which relief may be granted. Pursuant to § 1915(e)(2), the Court

DISMISSES the Complaint without prejudice for failure to state a claim.

III. Conclusion

For the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s renewed motion to proceed IFP

and DISMISSES the FAC without prejudice for failure to state a claim. The Plaintiff has thirty (30)

days to submit a Second Amended Complaint correcting the deficiencies noted herein. Failure to do so

will result in the Court’s dismissal of this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 31, 2012

Hon. Anthony J. Battaglia

U.S. District Judge

K:\COMMON\BATTAGLI\DJ CASES\2 Orders to be filed\12cv944.Order.Dismiss.SAC.wpd 3 12cv944

Case 3:12-cv-00944-AJB-MDD Document 7 Filed 05/31/12 Page 3 of 3