Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02070/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02070-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Bruce Derrick Calhoun,

Plaintiff,

v.

San Diego County; Huff; Brooks; Irma E.

Gonzales; Sheriff Gore; U.S. Marshales; Court

Security; San Diego Police Department; MTS;

NBC San Diego; City Hall; Chase Bank; San

Diego County Courthouse - Hall of Justice;

Edward J. Schwartz United States Courthouse;

Edward J. Schwartz Federal Building; Navy;

Air Force; Army; CIA; NSA; OSI; White

House; Naval Base Coronado; Justice

Department; San Diego Sheriff Dept.; Sharp

Hospital; VAMC Mission Valley; Vash Had

Section 8; Dr. Frankel; Department of Veteran

Affairs; Scott Davidson; Risk Management;

Mayor Sanders; Governor Brown; President

Obama; Homeland Security; Moskowitz;

Samnartino; McCurine; Marines; USD; UCSD;

SDSU; U.S. Grant; Plaza Hotel; Citizens

Review Board on Police Practices; Victims

Compensation Program; State Attorney; Social

Security; Grand Jury; Chargers; Padres; Elite;

Qualcom; Petco Park; Naval Base San Diego;

General Dynamics; AT&T; Verizon; LG;

Hyundai; Navy Federal Credit Union; Wells

Fargo Bank; Citi Bank; Bank of America; Old

Town Historical Park; Life Guards; Beach

Patrol; Ralphs; Prudential; Remax; Symbolic

Motor Car Company; ETC.,

Defendants. 

Civil No. 12cv2070 AJB (MDD)

ORDER:

(1) DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S

COMPLAINT SUA SPONTE;

(2) DENYING MOTION TO APPOINT

COUNSEL AS MOOT;

AND

(3) DENYING MOTION TO PROCEED IN

FORMA PAUPERIS AS MOOT 

[Doc. Nos. 1, 2, and 3]

1 12cv2070 AJB (MDD)

Case 3:12-cv-02070-AJB-MDD Document 4 Filed 09/10/12 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

On August 22, 2012, Plaintiff Bruce Derrick Calhoun, proceeding pro se, filed a Complaint

against San Diego County, U.S. District Court Judge Marilyn L. Huff, U.S. District Court Judge Irma E.

Gonzales, U.S. Magistrate Judge Ruben B. Brooks, Sheriff Gore, U.S. Marshals, Court Security, San

Diego Police Department, MTS, NBC San Diego, City Hall, Chase Bank, San Diego County Courthouse

- Hall of Justice, Edward J. Schwartz United States Courthouse, Edward J. Schwartz Federal Building,

Navy, Air Force, Army, CIA, NSA, OSI, White House, Naval Base Coronado, Justice Department, San

Diego Sheriff Dept., Sharp Hospital, VAMC Mission Valley, Vash Had Section 8, Dr. Frankel,

Department of Veteran Affairs, Scott Davidson, Risk Management, Mayor Sanders, Governor Brown,

President Obama, Homeland Security, U.S. District Court Judge Barry T. Moskowitz, U.S. District

Court Judge Janis L. Sammartino, U.S. Magistrate Judge William McCurine, Marines, USD, UCSD,

SDSU, U.S. Grant, Plaza Hotel, Citizens Review Board on Police Practices, Victims Compensation

Program, State Attorney, Social Security, Grand Jury, Chargers, Padres, Elite, Qualcomm, Petco Park,

Naval Base San Diego, General Dynamics, AT&T, Verizon, LG, Hyundai, Navy Federal Credit Union,

Wells Fargo Bank, Citi Bank, Bank of America, Old Town Historical Park, Life Guards, Beach Patrol,

Ralphs, Prudential, Remax, Symbolic Motor Car Company, and etc. (Doc. No. 1). Plaintiff moves to

proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) and argues that an appointment of

counsel is required pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). (Doc. Nos. 2, 3).

I. Sua Sponte Screening Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)

A party instituting a civil action in a district court is required to pay a filing fee of $350. 28

U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed despite a plaintiff’s failure to prepay the entire fee only if the

court grants the plaintiff 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). 

Proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), a district court must dismiss a case sua sponte if it

determines that the action fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. §

1915(e)(2)(B); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

8(a) required a plaintiff to allege “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is

entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). This statement must be sufficient to “give the defendant fair

notice of what the plaintiff’s claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,

2 12cv2070 AJB (MDD)

Case 3:12-cv-02070-AJB-MDD Document 4 Filed 09/10/12 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

550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). The factual allegations of

a complaint must be “enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Twombly, 550 U.S.

at 555. A plaintiff must plead more than conclusory allegations to show “plausible liability” and avoid

dismissal. Id. at 557 n.5.

Here, Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges that Defendants attempted to murder him at his residence

“and the Edward J. Schwartz United States Courthouse and the Edward J. Schwartz Federal Building,

and the 4th Floor Clerk while [he] filled out the paperwork.” The Complaint alleges that on August 22,

2012, “they were at [his] residence attempting to murder [him] again!” Plaintiff does not provide any

facts supporting his assertions. See Twombly, 550 I.S. at 555. Plaintiff’s allegations fail to demonstrate

plausible liability. Id. at 557 n.5. Accordingly, the Court dismisses Plaintiff’s Complaint sua sponte for

failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 

II. Motions to Appoint Counsel and to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

Because the Court dismisses the Complaint, Plaintiff’s requests for appointment of counsel and

to proceed in forma pauperis are moot.

III. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiff’s Complaint and DENIES Plaintiff’s

motions for appointment of counsel and to proceed in forma pauperis as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 7, 2012

Hon. Anthony J. Battaglia

U.S. District Judge

.

3 12cv2070 AJB (MDD)

Case 3:12-cv-02070-AJB-MDD Document 4 Filed 09/10/12 Page 3 of 3