Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00616/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00616-0/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PAMELA STICKLER,

Plaintiff,

v.

IMMIGRATION,

Defendant.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 12-cv-0616-JAH (KSC)

ORDER DISMISSING

COMPLAINT WITHOUT

PREJUDICE AND DENYING

MOTIONS TO PROCEED IN

FORMA PAUPERIS AND FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL AS

MOOT

Plaintiff, a non-prisoner appearing pro se, filed a complaint along with motions to

proceed in forma pauperis and for appointment of counsel. (Dkt. Nos. 1, 2, 3.)

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 in forma pauperis

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

1999). 

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

any person seeking to proceed in forma pauperis 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, failing to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or

12cv0616

Case 3:12-cv-00616-JAH-KSC Document 4 Filed 04/12/12 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

seeking 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). Section 1915 mandates that a court reviewing

a complaint filed pursuant to the in forma pauperis 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 Federal Rule of Civil Procedures, Rule 4(c)(2). Lopez, 203 F.3d

at 1127.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) tests the sufficiency of the complaint. 

Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d 729, 732 (9th Cir. 2001). Dismissal is warranted under

Rule 12(b)(6) where the complaint lacks a cognizable legal theory. Robertson v. Dean

Witter Reynolds, Inc., 749 F.2d 530, 534 (9th Cir. 1984); see Neitzke v. Williams, 490

U.S. 319, 326 (1989) (“Rule 12(b)(6) authorizes a court to dismiss a claim on the basis

of a dispositive issue of law.”). Alternatively, a complaint may be dismissed where it

presents a cognizable legal theory yet fails to plead essential facts under that theory. 

Robertson, 749 F.2d at 534. While a plaintiff need not give “detailed factual allegations,”

he must plead sufficient facts that, if true, “raise a right to relief above the speculative

level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 545 (2007).

To meet the requirements of Rule 12(b)(6), “a complaint must contain sufficient

factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” 

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 547). 

A claim is facially plausible when the factual allegations permit “the court to draw the

reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. In other

words, “the non-conclusory ‘factual content,’ and reasonable inferences from that content,

must be plausibly suggestive of a claim entitling the plaintiff to relief.” Moss v. U.S.

Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). 

As currently pled, the Court finds Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim upon

which relief can be granted. Plaintiff’s complaint consists of a single paragraph stating in

2 12cv0616

Case 3:12-cv-00616-JAH-KSC Document 4 Filed 04/12/12 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

full: “Specific relief granted requesting restraining order for Immigration because he

threatened with custody if I stood in the Sentri line. I’ve showed disabled papers. 

Specific relief to be able to go through the line because of the leg injury.” 

This Court’s review of the complaint reveals that no allegations in Plaintiff’s

complaint can be reasonably construed as presenting a cognizable claim for relief. 

Therefore, the complaint must be dismissed sua sponte pursuant to section 1915(e)(2)(B)

for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Because the complaint must

be dismissed, Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis and motion for appointment

of counsel are moot. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The instant complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; and

2. Plaintiff’s motions to proceed in forma pauperis and for appointment of

counsel are DENIED AS MOOT.

Dated: April 11, 2012

 

JOHN A. HOUSTON

United States District Judge

3 12cv0616

Case 3:12-cv-00616-JAH-KSC Document 4 Filed 04/12/12 Page 3 of 3