Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00014/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00014-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

1

3:19-CV-00014 JAH (NLS)

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

BRUD ROSSMANN,

Plaintiff,

v.

SUSAN WOJCICKI, ET AL.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:19-CV-00014 JAH (NLS)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

(ECF No. 2)

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Brud Rossmann’s Motion to Proceed In Forma 

Pauperis (“IFP”) (“Mot.,” ECF No. 2).

All parties instituting any civil action, suit, or proceeding in a district court of the 

United States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of 

$400. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed despite a plaintiff’s failure to 

prepay the entire fee only if the party is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). 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 the party 

is unable to pay the required filing fee. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

Plaintiff has filed an affidavit indicating his total monthly income is $750 (received 

through Supplemental Security Income) and that he is currently unemployed and has no 

Case 3:19-cv-00014-JLS-AHG Document 10 Filed 06/10/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

3:19-CV-00014 JAH (NLS)

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

other assets. Mot. at 1. Plaintiff indicates that his monthly expenses total $1,500 and he

has approximately $21,000 in outstanding student loan debt. Id. at 2. In his Complaint 

(“Compl.,” ECF No. 1), however, Plaintiff maintains that he is a decorated trial attorney 

and venture capitalist and lives in a unit at an upscale apartment complex in San Diego. 

Compl. at p. 1 and ¶ 1. Plaintiff’s Complaint also refers to real property he owns in the 

District. Compl. ¶ 30. Plaintiff’s Motion fails to explain how he is able to maintain his 

apartment and property in San Diego despite his alleged money deficit. See Compl. at 1. 

These same concerns were raised in a recent case from this District; Plaintiff failed to 

address them in that case and has failed to address them here. See Rossman v. Scaramucci, 

No. 15-cv-2693 LAB (MDD), 2015 WL 8482760, at *1 (S.D. Cal., Dec. 8, 2015). Given 

these facts, the Court in unable to conclude that Plaintiff is unable to pay the requisite fees 

and costs. Accordingly, the court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP (ECF No. 2).

Even if Plaintiff were granted IFP status, however, the Court would dismiss the 

Complaint for numerous reasons. The Court must screen every civil action brought 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) and dismiss any case it finds “frivolous or malicious,” 

“fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief against a 

defendant who is immune from relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see also 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 prisoner.”); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126–27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en

banc) (noting that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) “not only permits but requires a district court to 

dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint that fails to state a claim”). “A court may dismiss 

as frivolous complaints reciting bare legal conclusions with no suggestion of supporting 

facts, or postulating events and circumstances of a wholly fanciful kind.” Franklin v. 

Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1228 (9th Cir. 1984) (quoting Crisafi v. Holland, 655 F.2d 1305, 

1307–08 (D.C. Cir. 1981)). 

Here, Plaintiff filed an incomprehensible 155-page Complaint filled with highly 

offensive language, including anti-Semitic and racist epithets and potential threats of 

violence against unnamed individuals. See, e.g., Compl. at pp. 1, 20–21, 29, 46. Plaintiff’s 

Case 3:19-cv-00014-JLS-AHG Document 10 Filed 06/10/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

3:19-CV-00014 JAH (NLS)

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

allegations are fanciful and unsupported by any facts. It is thus clear to the Court that 

Plaintiff’s Complaint is frivolous. 

In addition to being frivolous, Plaintiff fails to state a cognizable claim. All 

complaints must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader 

is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). The closest Plaintiff gets to meeting this 

standard is his allegations that Defendants violated 18 U.S.C. § 1030 because they

“hijacked, commandeered, [and] otherwise unlawfully utilized” Plaintiff’s computers “to 

effect theft, fraud, or conversion of his and others’ property.” Compl. ¶ 159. But Plaintiff 

provides no factual support for these allegations. Indeed, at no point in his rambling, 

incoherent Complaint is there anything that could even be considered a rational thought. 

For these reasons, if Plaintiff files a renewed IFP motion, he should also file an 

amended complaint. The Court warns Plaintiff to abstain from using the same type of 

offensive language contained in his original Complaint in any future pleadings. This 

language lacks a place in pleadings submitted to the Court and in decent human 

interactions. Should Plaintiff fail to heed this warning, the Court may exercise its power

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) to sua sponte “strike from a pleading

[any] . . . immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter” that is present in future filings. 

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP (ECF 

No. 2). Plaintiff MUST either pay the filing fee or file a renewed motion to proceed IFP 

no later than June 21, 2019. Should Plaintiff fail to file a renewed motion to proceed IFP 

and correct the deficiencies in his Complaint identified by the Court within the time 

provided, the Court may dismiss this civil action without leave to amend.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 10, 2019

Case 3:19-cv-00014-JLS-AHG Document 10 Filed 06/10/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3