Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00068/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00068-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 870
Nature of Suit: Tax Suits
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 -

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PAMELA STICKLER,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 12-CV-68-LAB-BGS

ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS,

DENYING MOTION FOR

COUNSEL, AND DISMISSING

CASE

vs.

INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE,

Defendant.

Ms. Stickler filed this case against the IRS in January of this year. Now pending are

her Motion to Proceed IFP and Motion to Appoint Counsel.

I. IFP Motion

All parties instituting a civil action in a district court of the United States, except for

habeas petitioners, must pay a filing fee of $350. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). A party is

excused from paying the fee, however, if the Court grants leave to proceed IFP pursuant to

28 U.S.C. 1915(a). Ms. Stickler has submitted an IFP application that sufficiently

demonstrates her inability to pay the $350 filing fee. She was last employed in December

of 2009, has no savings or other assets, and appears to rely on churches for assistance.

Her Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis is therefore GRANTED.

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:12-cv-00068-LAB-BGS Document 4 Filed 03/16/12 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

- 2 -

II. Initial Screening

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the Court must screen each civil action commenced

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) and dismiss the action if the Court finds it is frivolous or

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

from an immune defendant. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 45

(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) (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).

The Court finds that Ms. Stickler’s complaint is frivolous and fails to state a claim upon

which relief can be granted. Ms. Stickler concedes she has been labeled a vexatious litigant,

and her complaint consists of two-handwritten pages in which, among other things, she

claims she has asked San Diego police to arrest IRS agents and “the President of U.S.A.

who may be part of it.” Ms. Stickler attaches to her complaint numerous pages from the

IRS’s website for which her complaint provides no context at all. Her case is DISMISSED

WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

III. Motion to Appoint Counsel 

There is no absolute right to counsel in civil proceedings. Hedges v. Resolution Trust

Corp., 32 F.3d 1360, 1363 (9th Cir. 1994). District courts do have discretion, pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), to request that an attorney represent indigent civil litigants, but that

requires a substantial showing that Ms. Stickler does not make. Her motion is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 14, 2012

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

Case 3:12-cv-00068-LAB-BGS Document 4 Filed 03/16/12 Page 2 of 2