Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00867/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00867-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1981 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

CINDY GUTIERREZ,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 15cv0867-WQH-RBB

ORDER

vs.

HERTZ CORP.,

Defendant.

HAYES, J:

The matter before the Court is the mandatory screening of the First Amended

Complaint (ECF No. 5) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1915(e)(2)(B). 

On April 20, 2015, Plaintiff Cindy Gutierrez commenced this action by filing the

Complaint (ECF No. 1), a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) (ECF No. 2),

and a motion for the appointment of counsel (ECF No. 3). On April 23, 2015, the Court

issued an Order, granting the motion to proceed IFP, dismissing the Complaint without

prejudice, and dismissing the motion for the appointment of counsel as moot. (ECF No.

4). On May 12, 2015, Plaintiff filed a “Complaint,” which the Court construes as the

First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). (ECF No. 5). 

I. Initial Screening of the Complaint

A complaint filed by any person proceeding in forma pauperis pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1915(a) is also subject to mandatory review and sua sponte dismissal to the

extent it “is frivolous or malicious; fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted;

or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C.

- 1 - 15cv0867-WQH-RBB

Case 3:15-cv-00867-WQH-RBB Document 6 Filed 05/21/15 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

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii); see also Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126 (9th Cir. 2000)

(en banc). Upon review of the allegations in the FAC, the Court finds they are

sufficient to satisfy the requirements of section 1915(e)(2)(B). However, Plaintiff is

advised that this Order will not be construed as a denial of a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss

or expressing an opinion as to whether the FAC would survive such a motion. See

Teahan v. Wilhelm, 481 F. Supp. 2d 1115, 1119 (S.D. Cal. 2007) (“[T]he sua sponte

screening and dismissal procedure is cumulative of, and not a substitute for, any

subsequent Rule 12(b)(6) motion that the defendant may choose to bring.”).

IV. Conclusion

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that ECF No. 5 shall be construed as the First

Amended Complaint. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall issue a summons and

provide Plaintiff with the summons, certified copies of both this Order and the First

Amended Complaint, and a blank U.S. Marshal Form 285. Plaintiff shall complete the

U.S. Marshal Form 285, and forward the Form 285 and the designated copies of this

Order and the First Amended Complaint to the U.S. Marshal. The U.S. Marshal shall

serve a copy of the Complaint and summons upon Defendant as directed by Plaintiff on

the U.S. Marshal Form 285. 

DATED: May 21, 2015

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

- 2 - 15cv0867-WQH-RBB

Case 3:15-cv-00867-WQH-RBB Document 6 Filed 05/21/15 Page 2 of 2