Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02865/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02865-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity Action

---

1

18-CV-2865-CAB-BLM

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

DEBRA BELL,

Plaintiff,

v.

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.,

Defendant.

Case No.: 18-CV-2865-CAB-BLM

ORDER DENYING APPLICATION 

FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN 

FORMA PAUPERIS AND SUA 

SPONTE DISMISSING COMPLAINT

[Doc. No. 4]

On December 21, 2018, Plaintiff, a non-prisoner, filed a complaint making 

allegations concerning the title on a property located in San Diego, California. Plaintiff 

did not pay the filing fee and instead applied to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). The 

Court denied Plaintiff’s IFP application without prejudice because of the lack of 

particularity, definiteness, and certainty in the information provided. Plaintiff has now 

filed a renewed IFP application that provides additional detail about her financial situation. 

The renewed application demonstrates that Plaintiff lacks the financial resources to pay the 

filing fees and still afford the necessities of life. See Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 

1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 2015); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 

Notwithstanding the foregoing, a complaint filed by any person seeking to proceed 

IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) is subject to a mandatory and sua sponte review and 

dismissal should the Court determine, inter alia, it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state 

a claim upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Calhoun v. Stahl, 

Case 3:18-cv-02865-CAB-BLM Document 5 Filed 01/22/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

18-CV-2865-CAB-BLM

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

254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir.2001) (“[T]he provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) are not 

limited to prisoners.”). Congress enacted this safeguard because “a litigant whose filing 

fees and court costs are assumed by the public, unlike a paying litigant, lacks an economic 

incentive to refrain from filing frivolous, malicious, or repetitive lawsuits.” Denton v. 

Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31 (1992) (quoting Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324 

(1989)).

Here, the complaint purports to assert only state law claims of “Fraud, Negligence,

and Misrepresentation attributed to Defendants’ multiple violations of ignoring proper loan 

procedures,” and appears to seek damages of $1,250,000 and to quiet title on a property 

located in San Diego. The complaint, however, does not allege any facts supporting these 

claims, let alone the particularity required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) for 

claims of fraud. Moreover, although Plaintiff alleges subject matter jurisdiction based on 

diversity of citizenship, according to the complaint, the requisite diversity is missing 

because both Plaintiff and Defendant S.D. Bank Homes are citizens of California. 

Accordingly, even if the complaint stated a claim, this Court lacks subject matter 

jurisdiction.

In light of the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff’s application to 

proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED because the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction 

over the complaint and because the complaint fails to state a claim. This dismissal is 

without prejudice to Plaintiff filing an amended complaint as part of a new lawsuit in state 

court. The Clerk of Court shall CLOSE this case.

It is SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 22, 2019

Case 3:18-cv-02865-CAB-BLM Document 5 Filed 01/22/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2