Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01297/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01297-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 362
Nature of Suit: Medical Malpractice
Cause of Action: 18:1962 Racketeering (RICO) Act

---

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 - 07cv2337

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GRACE L. SANDOVAL,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 08cv1297-L(LSP)

ORDER (1) GRANTING

MOTION TO PROCEED IN

FORMA PAUPERIS; (2)

DISMISSING COMPLAINT

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND; (3)

DENYING REQUEST FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

vs.

ROGELIO PINA.

Defendant.

Plaintiff Grace L. Sandoval, proceeding pro se, has submitted a complaint pursuant

to 18 U.S.C. § 1962. With the complaint, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Proceed in Forma

Pauperis (“IFP”) and a Request for Appointment of Counsel.

 All parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in a United States District

Court must pay a filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed despite a

plaintiff’s failure to prepay the fee only if the plaintiff is granted leave to proceed in forma

pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176,

1177 (9th Cir. 1999). Plaintiff’s declaration shows she has insufficient income and assets

to pay the filing fee. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to proceed IFP is granted.

The court is obligated to review a complaint filed IFP and must dismiss it if it

determines that the action 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

Case 3:08-cv-01297-L-LSP Document 5 Filed 07/23/08 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 - 07cv2337

relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see also 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). 

Plaintiff is attempting to bring a civil action under the Racketeer Influenced and

Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. § 1962(a), (b), (c) and/or (d). (See docket

no. 1, Civil Cover Sheet.) Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c), “[a]ny person injured in his

business or property by reason of a violation of section 1962 of this chapter may sue

therefor in any appropriate United States district court . . ..” 

Neither the complaint nor the RICO Case Statement filed therewith are sufficient to

state a claim under the civil RICO statute. In a 28-page complaint devoid of any headings

or even paragraphs Plaintiff offers a stream-of -consciousness account of alleged criminal

activity. Plaintiff alleges primarily assault, personal injuries, rape, kidnaping, and burglary

of Plaintiff and numerous other individuals by Defendant and other persons whose

connection to Defendant is unclear.

“A civil RICO claim requires allegations of the conduct of an enterprise through a

pattern of racketeering activity that proximately caused injury to the plaintiff.” Swartz v.

KPMG LLP, 476 F.3d 756, 760-61 (9th Cir. 2007). Specifically, the “elements of a civil

RICO claim are as follows: (1) conduct (2) of an enterprise (3) through a pattern (4) of

racketeering activity (known as predicate acts) (5) causing injury to plaintiff's business or

property.” Living Designs, Inc. v. E.I. Dupont de Nemours & Co., 431 F.3d 353, 361 (9th

Cir. 2005). To establish liability, “one must allege and prove the existence of two distinct

entities: (1) a ‘person’; and (2) an ‘enterprise’ that is not simply the same ‘person’ referred

to by a different name.” Id. The allegations in the complaint do not provide a basis for an

inference that the alleged criminal activity was a part of an enterprise or that Defendant was

engaged in such an enterprise. Accordingly, Plaintiff fails to state a claim for a civil RICO

violation. 

/ / / / /

Case 3:08-cv-01297-L-LSP Document 5 Filed 07/23/08 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 - 07cv2337

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is

GRANTED. Further, the complaint is DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. 

Plaintiff is granted thirty (30) days’ leave from the date this order is "Filed" in which to file

a first amended complaint and RICO case statement. Plaintiff's amended complaint must

be complete in itself without reference to the superseded pleading. See S.D. Cal. Civ. L. R.

15.1. Defendants not named and all claims not re-alleged in the amended complaint will be

deemed to have been waived. See King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987). 

Further, if Plaintiff's amended complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be

granted, it may be dismissed without further leave to amend and may hereafter be counted

as a "strike" under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177-79

(9th Cir. 1996). Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED WITHOUT

PREJUDICE to refiling it together with the amended complaint.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 23, 2008

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

COPY TO:

HON. LEO S. PAPAS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL

Case 3:08-cv-01297-L-LSP Document 5 Filed 07/23/08 Page 3 of 3