Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-02695/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-02695-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 350
Nature of Suit: Motor Vehicle Personal Injury
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 - 09cv2695 WQH (WVG)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GRACE L. SANDOVAL,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 09cv2695 WQH (WVG)

ORDER

vs.

MARTHA P. CARTER,

Defendant.

HAYES, Judge:

The matters before the Court are the Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

(Doc. # 2) and the Motion to Appoint Counsel (Doc. # 3).

BACKGROUND

On December 2, 2009, Plaintiff Grace L. Sandoval, a nonprisoner proceeding pro se,

initiated this action by filing the Complaint. (Doc. # 1). On December 2, 2009, Plaintiff also

filed the Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“Motion to Proceed IFP”) (Doc. #

2) and the Motion to Appoint Counsel (Doc. # 3). Plaintiff also filed a RICO Notice alleging

unlawful conduct in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962. (Doc. # 4).

ANALYSIS

I. 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 a 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. 2009).

In her affidavit accompanying the Motion to Proceed IFP, Plaintiff states that she is not

employed. (Doc. # 2 at 2). Plaintiff states she was last employed in August of 2009 earning

Case 3:09-cv-02695-WQH-WVG Document 5 Filed 12/09/09 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 - 09cv2695 WQH (WVG)

$86 per shift at Safe Haven Home Care in El Centro, California. Id. Plaintiff states she has

no income except for unemployment insurance payments of $40 per week. Id. Plaintiff states

she has a checking account with a balance of $900.00 and no savings. Id. Plaintiff states she

owns a 2002 Honda Civic and does not have any other significant assets such as real estate,

stocks, bonds, or securities. Id. Plaintiff states she owes money to the “U.S. Department of

Education” and to “Cash Collection.” Id. The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s affidavit of

assets and finds that it is sufficient to show that Plaintiff is unable to pay the fees or post

securities required to maintain this action. The Court grants the Motion to Proceed IFP

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.

II. Initial Screening Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)

After granting IFP status, the Court must dismiss the case if the case “fails to state a

claim on which relief may be granted” or is “frivolous.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

The standard used to evaluate whether a complaint should be dismissed is a liberal one,

particularly when the action has been filed pro se. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 97

(1976). However, even a “liberal interpretation . . . may not supply elements of the claim that

were not initially pled.” Ivey v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th

Cir. 1982). 

A complaint “is frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or fact. [The]

term ‘frivolous,’ when applied to the complaint, embraces not only the inarguable legal

conclusion, but also the fanciful factual allegation.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325

(1989); see also Martin v. Sias, 88 F.3d 774, 775 (9th Cir. 1996). When determining whether

a complaint is frivolous, the Court need not accept the factual allegations as true, but must

“pierce the veil of the complaint,” to determine if the allegations are “fanciful,” “fantastic,”

or “delusional.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992) (quoting Neitzke, 490 U.S.

at 327-28).

The following is an example of the Complaint’s allegations:

I, Grace L. Sandoval, also known as Grace S. Salali, Lupe Graciela Sandoval,

do not agree for anyone employed in law enforcement with false documents to

force in my place of residence, to follow me, Grace L. Sandoval, in public, to

follow me, Grace L. Sandoval, in my place of employment, to attack, to demand

Case 3:09-cv-02695-WQH-WVG Document 5 Filed 12/09/09 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

1

 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 provides: “A pleading that states a claim for relief

must contain: (1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction...; (2)

a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief; and (3)

a demand for the relief sought....” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Rule 8(d) provides that “[e]ach

allegation must be simple, concise, and direct.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d).

- 3 - 09cv2695 WQH (WVG)

illegals, criminals, orphans, children born premature with the drug Proviera

illegally etc., to force the drug Diprivan Causing the drug Riprivan to threaten

to pull my mouth brutally to cause to fall. Marylyn P. Garcia is also very violent

and dangerous. Manuel Garcia is a massacre. Manuel Garcia has no

employment. Manuel Garcia planned his disability of one foot to qualify for

disability. 

(Doc. # 1 at 4). The Complaint contains twenty-four pages of rambling, often fantastic

allegations similar to the example quoted above. The complaint does not allege any legal basis

under which Plaintiff is entitled to relief. The allegations in the complaint are insufficient to

put Defendants on notice of the claims against them, as required by Rule 8 of the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure.1

 The Court finds that Plaintiff fails to state a claim on which relief can be

granted. The Court dismisses the Complaint as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1915(e)(2)(B)(I).

III. Appointment of Counsel 

In light of the Court’s sua sponte dismissal of this action, Plaintiff’s request for

appointment of counsel is denied as moot.

CONCLUSION

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis

(Doc. # 2) is GRANTED. The Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice, and this case

shall be closed. The Motion to Appoint Counsel (Doc. # 3) is DENIED as moot.

DATED: December 9, 2009

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-02695-WQH-WVG Document 5 Filed 12/09/09 Page 3 of 3