Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01712/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01712-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
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

- 1 - 11cv1712

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DANIEL P. KLAHN,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 11-CV-1712 JLS (MDD)

ORDER: (1) GRANTING MOTION

TO PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS; (2) SUA SPONTE

DISMISSING COMPLAINT

UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)

(ECF No. 2)

vs.

NHIC CORPORATION,

Defendant.

Plaintiff Daniel P. Klahn, proceeding pro se, has filed a complaint (Compl., ECF No. 1) and

a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) (IFP Mot., ECF No. 2). A federal court may authorize

the commencement of an action without the prepayment of fees if the party submits an affidavit,

including a statement of assets, showing that she is unable to pay the required filing fee. 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(a). Here, Plaintiff is unemployed and receives $618 in biweekly unemployment benefits. (IFP

Mot. 2.) Additionally, his wife earns $5200 per month. (Id. at 3.) Although Plaintiff and his wife’s

total income is substantial, however, so are their current obligations. Plaintiff and his wife carry over

$100,000 in consumer debt, including approximately $50,000 in unsecured credit card debt. (Id. at

2–3.) They have less than $200 in two bank accounts, and most of their bills are thirty to sixty days

behind. (Id. at 2–3.) Based on the information provided, the Court finds that Plaintiff is unable to pay

Case 3:11-cv-01712-JLS-MDD Document 3 Filed 08/19/11 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

1

 The Court notes that this call is a close one. Plaintiff’s financial circumstances appear to be

more or less of his own doing; much of his debt appears to arise from spending items that can hardly

be termed “necessities of life,” including a $65,480 Winnebago and a time share. (IFP Mot. 2; see

Temple v. Ellerthorpe, 586 F. Supp. 848, 851 (D.R.I. 1984) (“If an applicant has the wherewithal to

pay court costs, or some part thereof, without depriving himself and his dependents . . . of the

necessities of life, then he should be required . . . to ‘put his money where his mouth is.’” (quoting In

re Stump, 449 F.2d 1297, 1298 (1st Cir. 1971))).) Nevertheless, considering the volume of Plaintiff’s

current obligations in light of his income, the Court cannot say that he is able to pay the required filing

fee.

- 2 - 11cv1712

the required filing fee. Accordingly, his motion to proceed IFP is GRANTED.

1

Notwithstanding the payment of any filing fee or portion thereof, a complaint filed by any

person proceeding IFP is subject to a mandatory sua sponte review and dismissal to the extent that it

(1) “is frivolous or malicious”; (2) “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted”; or

(3) “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)–(iii); Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (“[T]he provisions of 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) are not limited to prisoners . . . .”); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th

Cir. 2000) (“[S]ection 1915(e) not only permits but requires a district court to dismiss an in forma

pauperis complaint that fails to state a claim.”).

“[W]hen determining whether a complaint states a claim, a court must accept as true all

allegations of material fact and must construe those facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.”

Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th

Cir. 1998) (noting that § 1915(e)(2) “parallels the language of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

12(b)(6)). The Court must liberally construe “the ‘inartful pleadings’ of pro se litigants.” Ferdik v.

Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1261 (9th Cir. 1992) (citing, inter alia, Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364,

365 (1982)).

Here, even taking Plaintiff’s allegations as true, the Court finds that his complaint fails to state

a claim on which relief may be granted and, accordingly, must be dismissed. The gravamen of

Plaintiff’s complaint appears to be that Defendant, a medicare contractor, unlawfully denied Plaintiff’s

claim for medicare benefits. (See Compl. ¶¶ 3–6.) However, the jurisdictional and statutory bases of

Plaintiff’s complaint are entirely unclear. Plaintiff attempts to cite various federal statutes, including

“U.S.C. § 13-2:32,” “U.S.C. § 13-1:23” and “U.S.C. § 13-2:24.” (Id. ¶¶ 2, 4, 9.) Try as it might,

however, the Court cannot determine the provisions of the United States Code to which these citations

Case 3:11-cv-01712-JLS-MDD Document 3 Filed 08/19/11 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

- 3 - 11cv1712

refer. Given this lack of clarity, the Court concludes that Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim

on which relief may be granted.

Because Plaintiff’s allegations are insufficiently clear to state a claim for relief, Plaintiff’s

complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint

clearly setting forth the jurisdictional and statutory bases for this action, including the satisfaction of

any administrative exhaustion requirements, within 28 days of the date that this Order is electronically

docketed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 19, 2011

Honorable Janis L. Sammartino

United States District Judge

Case 3:11-cv-01712-JLS-MDD Document 3 Filed 08/19/11 Page 3 of 3