Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01602/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01602-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

KEITH DARRELL KADO,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 11-CV-1602 JLS (MDD)

ORDER: (1) DENYING MOTION

TO PROCEED IFP; (2) DENYING

MOTION TO APPOINT

COUNSEL; AND (3) DIRECTING

SERVICE OF FIRST AMENDED

COMPLAINT

vs.

PERFORMANCE CONTRACTING, INC. et

al.,

Defendant.

On August 19, 2011, the Court granted Plaintiff Keith Darrell Kado’s motion to proceed in

forma pauperis (“IFP”), denied his motion to appoint counsel, and sua sponte dismissed his Complaint

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). (ECF No. 4.) Plaintiff subsequently filed a First Amended Complaint

(“FAC”) (ECF No. 5) as well as another motion to proceed IFP (ECF No. 6) and motion to appoint

counsel (ECF No. 7). 

SUA SPONTE SCREENING

Notwithstanding IFP status, the Court must subject each civil action commenced pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) to mandatory screening and shall order the sua sponte dismissal of any case

- 1 - 11cv1602

Case 3:11-cv-01602-JLS-MDD Document 8 Filed 05/10/12 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

it finds “is 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 such relief.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(B); see also 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”the court to sua sponte dismiss an IFP

complaint that fails to state a claim).

Before its amendment by the PLRA, former 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) permitted sua sponte

dismissal of only frivolous and malicious claims. Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1130. However, as

amended, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) mandates that the court reviewing an action filed pursuant to

the IFP provisions of § 1915 make and rule on its own motion to dismiss before directing the

U.S. Marshal to effect service pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(c)(3). See id. at

1127; Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845 (9th Cir. 2001). 

“[W]hen determining whether a complaint states a claim, a court must accept as true all

allegations of material fact and must construe those facts in the light most favorable to the

plaintiff.” Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000); see also Andrews v. King, 398

F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2005); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998)

(noting that § 1915(e)(2) “parallels the language of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)”). In

addition, the Court has a duty to liberally construe a pro se plaintiff’s pleadings, see

Karim-Panahi v. L.A. Police Dep’t, 839 F.2d 621, 623 (9th Cir. 1988), which is “particularly

important in civil rights cases,” Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1261 (9th Cir. 1992). In giving

liberal interpretation to a pro se litigant’s complaint, however, the court may not “supply essential

elements of the claim that were not initially pled.” Ivey v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Alaska,

673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982).

Having conducted an initial screen of the FAC, construing it liberally, the Court finds that

Plaintiff’s claims are sufficiently pleaded to survive the sua sponte screening requirement of 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to U.S. Marshal service on his behalf. See

Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126–27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) (“The

officers of the court shall issue and serve all process, and perform all duties in [IFP] cases.”); Fed.

R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3) (courts must “order that service be made by a United States marshal or deputy

- 2 - 11cv1602

Case 3:11-cv-01602-JLS-MDD Document 8 Filed 05/10/12 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

marshal . . . if the plaintiff is authorized to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.”). 

Plaintiff is cautioned, however, that “the sua sponte screening and dismissal procedure is

cumulative of, not a substitute for, any subsequent Rule 12(b)(6) motion that [a defendant] may

choose to bring.” Teahan v. Wilhelm, 481 F. Supp. 2d 1115, 1119 (S.D. Cal. 2007).

MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL

As stated in the Court’s previous Order denying Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel,

“[t]here is no constitutional right to appointed counsel for employment discrimination claims.” 

Ivey v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 269 (9th Cir. 1982). In actions brought

under Title VII, the Court may appoint counsel “in such circumstances as the court may deem

just.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1). Three factors are relevant: “(1) the plaintiff’s financial

resources; (2) the efforts made by the plaintiff to secure counsel on his own; and (3) the

meritoriousness of plaintiff’s claims.” Ivey, 673 F.2d at 269. In his prior motion to appoint

counsel, Plaintiff had not shown any effort to secure counsel on his own. He now submits letters

documenting three failed attempts to secure counsel on his behalf. (See FAC 2-4.) There is also

no dispute that Plaintiff lacks sufficient financial resources to hire counsel because he is

proceeding IFP in this action. However, the Court cannot conclude based on the evidence before it

that Plaintiff’s claims are sufficiently meritorious to require appointment of counsel. Accordingly,

the Court again concludes that the circumstances do not warrant appointment of counsel at this

time, and DENIES Plaintiff’s motion without prejudice. 

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff’s motion to proceed IFP is DENIED AS MOOT, the Court having already

granted Plaintiff IFP status. For reasons stated above, the Court directs service of Plaintiff’s FAC. 

The Clerk shall issue a summons as to Plaintiff’s FAC upon Defendants and shall forward it to

Plaintiff along with a blank U.S. Marshal Form 285. In addition, the Clerk shall provide Plaintiff

with a certified copy of this Order and a certified copy of the FAC and the summons. Upon receipt

of this “IFP Package,” Plaintiff is directed to complete the forms as completely and accurately as

possible, and to return them to the U.S. Marshal according to the instructions provided by the

Clerk in the letter accompanying his IFP package. Upon receipt, the U.S. Marshal shall serve a

- 3 - 11cv1602

Case 3:11-cv-01602-JLS-MDD Document 8 Filed 05/10/12 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

copy of the FAC and summons upon Defendants as directed by Plaintiff on the forms. All costs of

service shall be advanced by the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d); Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3).

Defendants shall reply to the complaint within the time provided by the applicable

provisions of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(a). Plaintiff shall serve upon Defendants or, if

appearance has been entered by counsel, upon Defendants’ counsel, a copy of every further

pleading or other document submitted for consideration of the Court. Plaintiff shall include with

the original paper to be filed with the Clerk of the Court a certificate stating the manner in which a

true and correct copy of any document was served on the Defendants or counsel of Defendants and

the date of service. Any paper received by a district judge or magistrate judge which has not been

filed with the Clerk or which fails to include a Certificate of Service may be disregarded.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 10, 2012

Honorable Janis L. Sammartino

United States District Judge

- 4 - 11cv1602

Case 3:11-cv-01602-JLS-MDD Document 8 Filed 05/10/12 Page 4 of 4