Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_08-cv-00312/USCOURTS-cand-4_08-cv-00312-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 371
Nature of Suit: Truth in Lending
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IVONNE ORTIZ

Plaintiff(s), No. C 08-0312 PJH

v. ORDER DISMISSING 

COMPLAINT

TAYLOR BEAN AND WHITAKER

Defendant(s).

_______________________________/

Before the court is plaintiff Ivonne Ortiz’ application to proceed in forma pauperis and

“Petition for Libel of Review of an Administrative Judgment,” both of which were filed

January 16, 2008. 

The Court may authorize a plaintiff to file an action in federal court without

prepayment of fees or security if the plaintiff submits an affidavit showing that he or she is

unable to pay such fees or give security therefor. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). The in forma

pauperis statute also provides that the Court shall dismiss the case if at any time the Court

determines that the allegation of poverty is untrue, or that the action (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). 

Here, plaintiff’s application fails to establish a viable allegation of poverty, and the

petition itself fails to state any claim upon which relief may be granted. First, in her IFP

application, plaintiff states that she is employed by “Gymbori [sic]” and that her gross salary

per month is “$2,800." She then goes on to state, however, that her past employment

earned her “$28,000" per month. Furthermore, she states that she owns a home with an

estimated market value of “$560,000" and a “$4200" mortgage, as well as a 2007 Honda

with an outstanding loan in the amount of “$191,000," and that her monthly expenses equal

Case 4:08-cv-00312-PJH Document 4 Filed 02/01/08 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

$840. These conflicting allegations make it impossible for the court to determine whether

plaintiff warrants IFP status. On the one hand, a salary of $2800 gross per month, in view

of $840 worth of monthly expenses, and a mortgage amount of $4,200, would indicate that

plaintiff is sufficiently indebted so as to qualify for IFP status. On the other hand, ownership

of a home worth $560,000 and a 2007 Honda vehicle counsel against any allegations of

poverty. 

Regardless whether such discrepancies can ultimately be clarified further, however,

plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim. Plaintiff alleges, for example, that she is

petitioning the court for a “Review of Foreign Judgment,” without indicating the foreign

judgment for which she seeks review. She also asserts that all parties are “U.S. Vessels

and fit the legal definition of a U.S. Vessel,” such that the “Public Vessels Act” applies, but

never alleges any conduct allegedly falling under the Act. Similarly, she invokes the First

Judiciary Act, Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act, Bills of Lading Act, and Admiralty Extension

Act, without ever clearly defining the nature of any conduct or grievances that fall under any

of these Acts. Finally, while plaintiff seeks relief in relation to an alleged

“agreement/contract” and further seeks to have the court “enforce the Administrative

findings in the perfected agreement,” plaintiff fails to sufficiently identify the nature of the

alleged agreement or any administrative decision. In sum, the court can discern no basis

upon which relief may be granted to plaintiff.

Accordingly, the instant complaint is hereby DISMISSED, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1915(e)(2)(B), and plaintiff’s corresponding application to proceed in forma pauperis is

furthermore DENIED as moot. The dismissal is with prejudice. The clerk shall close the

file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 31, 2008 ______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:08-cv-00312-PJH Document 4 Filed 02/01/08 Page 2 of 2