Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-02525/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-02525-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 350
Nature of Suit: Motor Vehicle Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 18:1962 Racketeering (RICO) Act

---

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

09cv2525-MMA (POR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GRACE L. SANDOVAL,

Plaintiff,

CIVIL CASE NO. 09cv2525-MMA (POR)

vs. ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS;

[Doc. No. 2]

DENYING AS MOOT REQUEST

FOR APPOINTMENT OF

COUNSEL;

[Doc. No. 3]

DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH

PREJUDICE

ARICK STILLWAGON,

Defendant.

Plaintiff Grace L. Sandoval, proceeding pro se, has filed a complaint [Doc. No. 1], along

with a Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) [Doc. No. 2] and a Request for Appointment

Counsel [Doc. No. 3]. Based on the information provided by Plaintiff, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1915(a), the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s IFP motion, solely for the purpose of the motions currently

before the Court. The Court is obligated to review a complaint filed IFP sua sponte and must

dismiss the action if it determines that the complaint is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim

for relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). After careful review, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s

complaint is frivolous and void of any plausible claims for relief. Because “it is absolutely clear that

the deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by amendment,” the Court DISMISSES the

complaint with prejudice. Franklin v. Murphy, 245 F.2d 1221, 1228 n.9 (9th Cir. 1984). As such,

the Court DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiff’s Request for Appointment of Counsel. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 16, 2009

Hon. Michael M. Anello, U. S. District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-02525-MMA-POR Document 4 Filed 11/16/09 Page 1 of 1