Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01162/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01162-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

1

19cv1162-DMS-NLS

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

LEVITA A. WALKER; MALIK J. 

BULLOCK,

Plaintiffs,

v.

FALLBROOK UNION SCHOOL 

DISTRICT,

Defendant.

Case No.: 19cv1162-DMS-NLS

ORDER (1) GRANTING 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 

AND (2) DISMISSING COMPLAINT

WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR 

FAILING TO STATE A CLAIM 

UPON WHICH RELIEF CAN BE 

GRANTED PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)

Plaintiffs, non-prisoners proceeding pro se, have submitted a Complaint along with 

a request to proceed In Forma Pauperis.

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 

$400. 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 Plaintiffs’ affidavit of assets is sufficient to show they are unable to pay the fees or 

Case 3:19-cv-01162-DMS-NLS Document 4 Filed 02/04/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

19cv1162-DMS-NLS

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

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

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

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)”). 

Here, Plaintiff Levita Walker alleges her son, Plaintiff Malik Bullock, suffers from 

stress caused by Defendant Fallbrook Union School District. (Compl. at 2). Plaintiff 

alleges Defendant prevented her son from attending its school because of his age. (Id.). 

Plaintiff alleges she was then forced to take her son to a school in Oceanside. (Id.). 

Plaintiff alleges Defendant’s actions constitute discrimination. (Id. at 3). Plaintiff, 

however, fails to specify a legal basis for her claim. In the absence of that information, 

Plaintiff’s complaint is subject to sua sponte dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 

Case 3:19-cv-01162-DMS-NLS Document 4 Filed 02/04/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

19cv1162-DMS-NLS

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

Conclusion and Order

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

IFP is GRANTED and the Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to state 

a claim.1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 28, 2020

 

1

 In light of this ruling, Plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel is denied.

Case 3:19-cv-01162-DMS-NLS Document 4 Filed 02/04/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3