Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00371/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00371-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 443
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Accommodations
Cause of Action: 42:1981 Housing Discrimination

---

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

Plaintiff’s original complaint named only Rigo Uribe as defendant.

- 1 - 07cv0371

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HUSSAIN D. VAHIDALLAH,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 07 CV 0371 JM (CAB) 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION

TO PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS AND DIRECTING

U.S. MARSHAL TO EFFECT

SERVICE OF PROCESS

vs.

SAN DIEGO HOUSING

COMMISSION, RIGO URIBE, doing

business as STRONG ARM

CONSTRUCTION,

Defendants.

 On February 27, 2007, Plaintiff, a non-prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this §

1981 action with supplemental state claims against Defendants. Plaintiff also filed a

motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. See Docket

No 2. On March 5, 2007, the court denied IFP status on the ground that Plaintiff had

not specified in his affidavit the amounts he receives in Social Security payments and

other disability benefits, and because Plaintiff did not indicate the specific balance in

his checking account. On April 13, 2007, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which

added San Diego Housing Commission as a defendant.1

 On May 2, 2007, nunc pro tunc

to April 30, 2007, Plaintiff filed additional pleadings, which the court now construes

as a renewed motion to proceed IFP. See Docket No. 11. Attached to these pleadings

Case 3:07-cv-00371-JM-CAB Document 16 Filed 05/14/07 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

- 2 - 07cv0371

were documents showing that Plaintiff’s checking account, as of April 17, 2007, has a

negative balance. Therefore, the court concludes that Plaintiff is poor enough to

prosecute this civil action without prepayment of fees or security. 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), however, the court may sua sponte

dismiss the action if the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be

granted. The complaint, to the extent it can be understood, arises out of the defendants’

alleged promise to provide a loan for the construction and rehabilitation of Plaintiff’s

home. Plaintiff alleges, among other things, that he suffered from unlawful

discrimination when an agent of defendant San Diego Housing Commission denied

Plaintiff the aforementioned loan on the basis of Plaintiff’s sex. The Fourteenth

Amendment prohibits sex-based discrimination by state actors. United States v.

Virginia, 518 U.S. 515, 531 (1996). Construing the complaint liberally in favor of

plaintiff, Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488, 493 (1989), the court finds that Plaintiff has

stated a claim upon which relief can be granted. 

Plaintiff also requests appointment of counsel. There is no constitutional right

to appointed counsel in a civil action. Lassiter v. Dept. of Social Servs., 452 U.S. 18,

25 (1981). District courts, however, have discretion to appoint counsel for an indigent

plaintiff. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1); Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089,1093 (9th Cir.

1980). The court may appoint counsel under section 1915(e)(1) only under

“exceptional circumstances.” Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991).

In evaluating whether a particular case is “exceptional,” the court must consider both

“the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the petitioner to

articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id.

(quoting Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986)). “Neither of

these factors is dispositive and both must be viewed together before reaching a

decision.” Id. Although the court has serious concerns as to whether Plaintiff will be

able to intelligently articulate his claims in further pleadings, the court also finds that

the likelihood of success on the merits is questionable. Therefore, this case presents no

Case 3:07-cv-00371-JM-CAB Document 16 Filed 05/14/07 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 - 07cv0371

exceptional circumstances warranting appointment of counsel. Accordingly, the request

for appointment of counsel is DENIED. 

In conclusion, the motion to proceed IFP is GRANTED. The United States

Marshal shall serve a copy of the amended complaint, see Docket No. 6, summons and

this order granting Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis upon Defendants as

directed by plaintiff on U.S. Marshal Form 285. All costs of service shall be advanced

by the United States. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 14, 2007

 Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller

 United States District Judge

cc: All Parties

United States Marshals Service

Case 3:07-cv-00371-JM-CAB Document 16 Filed 05/14/07 Page 3 of 3