Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00204/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00204-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1346 Tort Claim

---

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

Joel B. Weinrich,

Plaintiff,

v.

U.S. Military, et al.,

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 13cv204 AJB (WMc)

Order Denying Motion to Proceed 

In Forma Pauperis, Dismissing

Complaint for Failure to State a

Claim, and Denying Motion for

Appointment of Counsel

[Doc. Nos. 1, 2, 3]

On January 25, 2013, the Plaintiff, Joel B. Weinrich, a non-prisoner proceeding

pro se, commenced this action against the United States Military, the United States

Congress, the Central Intelligence Agency, Sarah Palin, Duncan Hunter and other

unknown defendants. The 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). For the following reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion

to proceed IFP and sua sponte DISMISSES Plaintiff’s Complaint for failure to state a

claim. Additionally, due to the dismissal for failure to state a claim, the Court DENIES,

as premature, Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel. 

///

///

1 13cv204

Case 3:13-cv-00204-AJB-WMC Document 8 Filed 04/05/13 Page 1 of 4
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

I. Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

The Plaintiff moves to proceed IFP under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Section 1915(a)

allows a court to authorize a lawsuit’s commencement without payment of the filing fee

if the plaintiff submits an affidavit demonstrating his or her inability to pay the filing fee. 

Such affidavit must include a complete statement of the plaintiff’s assets. However, an

IFP action is subject to dismissal if the court determines that the complaint is frivolous or

malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary

damages against a defendant who is immune from liability for such damages. 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2). When a plaintiff moves to proceed IFP, the court first “grants or denies IFP

status based on the plaintiff's financial resources alone and then independently determines

whether to dismiss the complaint” pursuant to § 1915(e)(2). Franklin v. Murphy, 745

F.2d 1221, 1226 n.5 (9th Cir. 1984). 

“To proceed in forma pauperis is a privilege not a right.” Smart v. Heinze, 347 F.2d

114, 116 (9th Cir. 1965). A party need not be completely destitute to proceed in forma

pauperis. Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339-40 (1948). But

“the same even-handed care must be employed to assure that federal funds are not

squandered to underwrite, at public expense, either frivolous claims or the remonstrances

of a suitor who is financially able, in whole or in material part, to pull his own oar.”

Temple v. Ellerthorpe, 586 F. Supp. 848, 850 (D.R.I. 1984).

The Plaintiff submitted an affidavit in support of the IFP motion indicating that he

is unemployed, has a checking account with a balance of $180.00 dollars, owns a 1998

Toyota Tacoma and a home valued at $190,000. The affidavit, however, is otherwise

incomplete as many of the remaining sections are missing required information. Furthermore, the Court finds that the motion and declaration submitted by Plaintiff in support of

his request to proceed IFP do not represent a full and accurate summary of his financial

condition because the IFP affidavit and the affidavit submitted in conjunction with the

Plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel are inconsistent and contain numerous

discrepancies. Because Plaintiff’s affidavit is incomplete and inconsistent, the affidavit

2 13cv204

Case 3:13-cv-00204-AJB-WMC Document 8 Filed 04/05/13 Page 2 of 4
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

does not support the Plaintiff’s contention that he is unable to pay the costs of this

litigation without foregoing the necessities of life. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1); United States

v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 940 (9th Cir. 1981) (per curiam) (when a claim of poverty is

made under § 1915, it is essential for the application to state the facts as to poverty with

some particularity, definiteness and certainty). For these reasons, the Court concludes that

Plaintiff has not satisfied the indigency requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). Accordingly, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in

forma pauperis.

II. Sua Sponte Dismissal for Failure to State a Claim

The Plaintiff’s Complaint does not state a specific claim on which relief may be

granted. A court may dismiss the case at any time if it determines the plaintiff failed to

state a claim on which relief may be granted pursuant to § 1915(e)(2). Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998). “A plaintiff must allege facts, not simply

conclusions, that show that an individual was personally involved in the deprivation of

his civil rights.” Id. A court will deny any motion that fails to present a legal and factual

basis. Id. Here, Plaintiff’s Complaint arrives at vague conclusions without alleging

specific constitutional or civil rights violations. His pleading fails to state facts against

each defendant who allegedly violated his rights. As a result, Plaintiff has not presented

a sufficient basis for a cognizable claim on which relief may be granted. Pursuant to §

1915(e)(2), the Court DISMISSES the Complaint WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure

to state a claim.

III. Motion for Appointment of Counsel 

In his motion to appoint counsel, Plaintiff argues that an appointment of counsel is

required in this case based upon his indigent status and complications with witnesses.

“[T]here is no absolute right to counsel in civil proceedings.” Hedges v. Resolution Trust

Corp. (In re Hedges), 32 F.3d 1360, 1363 (9th Cir. 1994) (citation omitted). Thus,

federal courts do not have the authority “to make coercive appointments of counsel.” 

Mallard v. United States District Court, 490 U.S. 296, 310 (1989); see also United States

3 13cv204

Case 3:13-cv-00204-AJB-WMC Document 8 Filed 04/05/13 Page 3 of 4
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

v. $292,888.04 in U.S. Currency, 54 F.3d 564, 569 (9th Cir. 1995). Districts courts have

discretion, however, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), to “request” that an attorney

represent indigent civil litigants upon a showing of exceptional circumstances. See

Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Burns v. County of King, 883

F.2d 819, 823 (9th Cir. 1989). “A finding of exceptional circumstances requires an

evaluation of both the ‘likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the plaintiff

to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.’

Neither of these issues is dispositive and both must be viewed together before reaching a

decision.’” Id. (quoting Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986)). 

Here, the Court cannot appoint counsel when Plaintiff has not yet stated a cognizable claim. Having dismissed the Complaint, the Court concludes that this motion is

premature and therefore, there is no basis for appointment of counsel pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) at this time. Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel is DENIED

WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 4, 2013

Hon. Anthony J. Battaglia

U.S. District Judge

I:\Chambers Battaglia\DJ CASES\Even Numbers - Erin's Cases\1.IFP\12cv204.Wienrich.deny.IFP.ApptCnsl.dismiss.wpd 4 13cv204

Case 3:13-cv-00204-AJB-WMC Document 8 Filed 04/05/13 Page 4 of 4