Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00256/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00256-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
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

- 1 - 12cv0256

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PAMELA STICKLER,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 12cv0256 DMS (RBB)

vs. ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 

AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT

WITH PREJUDICE FOR FAILING

TO STATE A CLAIM UPON

WHICH RELIEF CAN BE

GRANTED PURSUANT TO 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)

GEORGE BUSH,

Defendant.

Plaintiff, a non-prisoner proceeding pro se, has submitted a Complaint, Motion and Declaration

Under Penalty of Perjury in Support of Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”), and a request

for appointment of counsel. 

Motion to Proceed IFP

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 $350. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a).

An action may proceed despite a plaintiff’s failure to prepay the entire fee only if the plaintiff is granted

leave to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th

Cir. 1999). This Court finds Plaintiff’s affidavit of assets is sufficient to show she is unable to pay the

fees or post securities required to maintain this action. See Civil Local Rule 3.2(d). Accordingly, the

Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

Case 3:12-cv-00256-DMS-RBB Document 4 Filed 03/21/12 Page 1 of 2
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 1

 In light of the Court’s dismissal of Plaintiff’s Complaint, the Court denies Plaintiff’s request

for appointment of counsel as moot.

- 2 - 12cv0256

Sua Sponte Screening per 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)

Notwithstanding payment of any filing fee or portion thereof, a complaint filed by any person

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

dismissal by the court to the extent it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may

be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §

1915(e)(2)(B); 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 prisoners.”); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000)

(en banc). Prior to its amendment by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, the former 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)

permitted sua sponte dismissal of only frivolous and malicious claims. Id. at 1130. The newly enacted

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), however, mandates that the court reviewing a complaint filed pursuant to the

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

complaint be served by the U.S. Marshal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(2). Lopez, 203 F.3d 1127

(“[S]ection 1915(e) not only permits, but requires a district court to dismiss an in forma pauperis

complaint that fails to state a claim.”); see also Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir.

1998) (noting the “the language of § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) parallels the language of Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 12(b)(6).”). 

As currently pleaded, Plaintiff’s complaint is subject to sua sponte dismissal under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) because it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Because “it is

absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by amendment,” the Court

dismisses the complaint with prejudice. Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1228 n.9 (9th Cir. 1984).

 Conclusion and Order

For these reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP is

GRANTED and the Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state a claim.1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 21, 2012

HON. DANA M. SABRAW

United States District Judge

Case 3:12-cv-00256-DMS-RBB Document 4 Filed 03/21/12 Page 2 of 2