Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01005/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01005-1/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 - 10cv1005

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MR. JOHN T. McELVANEY,,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 10cv1005-LAB (WMC)

ORDER REJECTING

“PROBABLE CASE

DOCUMENTS” FOR FILING

vs.

BANK OF AMERICA,

Defendant.

On May 11, 2010, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint against Bank of

America alleging theft of a portion of his social security payments from around 1984 to 1996.

That same day, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) and for

appointment of counsel. On May 17, the Court denied his motion to proceed IFP because

the information provided was incomplete. The same order noted several deficiencies in the

complaint, dismissed it without prejudice, and gave Plaintiff leave to file an amended

complaint no later than June 14, 2010. That order remains in effect.

The next day, Plaintiff submitted a packet of various papers consisting of a black

folder and a large manila envelope with Plaintiff’s name on it and a notation saying it was

intended for attorney Steve Gold. The folder contained recent bank receipts clipped

together, copies of reports to the police and FBI, a single sheet of paper containing what

appear to be Plaintiff’s notes about this case, copies of his social security disability benefits

Case 3:10-cv-01005-LAB-WMC Document 5 Filed 05/28/10 Page 1 of 3
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 - 10cv1005

statements from 1984 to 2010, and various other notes and scraps of paper, some of which

are clipped together.

The “Statement of Probable Case” cannot be accepted for filing. First, it is in the

incorrect format and would be impossible to docket. See Civil Local Rule 5.1. Second, the

documents included in the packet do not make a coherent statement, argument, or request

of any kind. Apparently Plaintiff is either entrusting these documents to the Court in case

they are needed at some point, he is offering them in support his motion for appointment of

counsel, or else he has submitted this packet in lieu of his amended complaint. 

If Plaintiff is asking the Court to take custody of these documents, the Court is not

inclined to do so. Plaintiff should keep the documents himself and wait until they are

needed. The Court will, however, retain its own copy of Plaintiff’s case notes and social

security disability statements in its file.

Plaintiff may also be submitting these documents in support of his motion for

appointment of counsel, but if so they are not required. The form Plaintiff submitted his

motion on is provided by the Clerk’s office, but it is designed to be used in employment

discrimination cases, and seeks an appointment of counsel pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e5(f)(1). In the type of case Plaintiff is bringing, counsel is not normally appointed, and at this

time the Court lacks information to make the decision. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d

1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986) (explaining that counsel should be appointed for civil litigants only

in “exceptional circumstances,” and setting forth factors to be considered). The form

indicates Plaintiff had spoken to attorney Steve Gold, which tends to suggest Plaintiff

intended the “Statement of Probable Case” as documentation in support of this motion. 

In response to the question whether Plaintiff had received a right-to-sue letter, he

answered “yes.” The form then said, if the answer was yes, that a copy of the commission’s

investigative file must be attached to the request. It may be that Plaintiff believed he was

required to send the Court copies of reports he made to the police and FBI, but this is

incorrect. The Court does not need copies of the police reports or FBI reports at this time.

/ / /

Case 3:10-cv-01005-LAB-WMC Document 5 Filed 05/28/10 Page 2 of 3
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

- 3 - 10cv1005

 If Plaintiff intended the “Statement of Probable Case” as a substitute for his amended

complaint, it cannot be accepted for that purpose. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) requires that a

complaint contain a short and plain statement of the grounds for the Court’s jurisdiction, a

short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and a

demand for the relief sought. The “Statement of Probable Case” does not contain any of

these. It is not the Court’s role to act as Plaintiff’s advocate by sifting through his documents

and making arguments or requests for him. See Cendali v. Trex Enterprises Corp., 2008 WL

595081, slip op. at *2 (S.D.Cal. Feb. 29, 2008) (requiring plaintiff to make factual allegations,

rather than rely on the court to review the collection of documents plaintiff submitted and

create arguments for him).

Finally, the Court notes the documents Plaintiff submitted show his previous IFP

application is inaccurate. Previously, Plaintiff said he had only $14.00 in his bank account,

but the bank receipts he submitted show he had over $100 in his account on the date he

signed and filed his IFP application; the $14.00 figure is apparently the amount of a

withdrawal he made. And though Plaintiff also said he was receiving no social security or

disability income or other income of any kind, his social security disability statements show

he is receiving a steady but modest income. While these errors do not show Plaintiff can

afford to pay the filing fee, they do show Plaintiff’s statements about his income and assets

were not accurate. The Court admonishes Plaintiff to be careful to be accurate in all

statements he makes to the Court. This is particularly important when the declaration is

made under penalty of perjury, as Plaintiff’s IFP application was.

The “Statement of Probable Case” is therefore REJECTED for filing. The Clerk is

directed to return it to Plaintiff.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 27, 2010

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

Case 3:10-cv-01005-LAB-WMC Document 5 Filed 05/28/10 Page 3 of 3