Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02444/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02444-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

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

, a minor,

and, her natural

guardian,

Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA REGENTS SAN

DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY et al.,

Defendants.

_______________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 3:12-cv-2444-GPC-MDD

REDACTED ORDER:

(1) GRANTING MOTION FOR

EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE;

(2) DENYING MOTION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS AS MOOT; 

(3) DENYING MOTION TO

APPOINT COUNSEL;

(4) REQUIRING GUARDIAN TO

RETAIN COUNSEL

(ECF NOS. 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18)

On October 9, 2012,(“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint on behalf of

her minor daughter. (ECF No. 1.) The Complaint alleges Plaintiff’s minor daughter

suffered sexual and physical abuse by various defendants. (Id.) On the same date,

Plaintiff filed an ex parte motion to seal the case, along with a request for appointment

of counsel. (ECF Nos. 3, 4.) On November 15, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion to

proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 2.) 

On November 27, 2012, this Court granted in part Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Motion

3:12-cv-2444-GPC-MDD

Case 3:12-cv-02444-GPC-MDD Document 31 Filed 05/13/13 Page 1 of 4
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

to Seal Case. (ECF No. 5, 6.) In the order on Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Motion to Seal Case,

the Court required all existing documents to be filed under seal and further required

two versions of all future documents to be filed: one sealed version and one redacted

version to be publicly available. (Id.) The Court further directed Plaintiff to file an

amended complaint and amended versions of her Civil Cover Sheet, Motion to Proceed

in Forma Pauperis, and Requestfor Appoint ofCounsel using her minor daughter’s true

name by December 7, 2012. (Id.) The Court directed Plaintiff to file sealed and

1

redacted versions of those documents. (Id.)

On February 12, 2013, Plaintiff filed sealed and redacted versions of the

amended documents, along with a request for extension of time, given that the deadline

to file those documents had passed. (ECF Nos. 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18.)

I. Motion for Extension of Time to File

Good cause appearing, Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to File, (ECF

Nos. 11,18), is GRANTED. 

II. Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis

All partiesinstituting 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

$350.00. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(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).

On October 9, 2012, Plaintiff paid the required $350.00 filing fee. (See ECF No.

1.) Thus, because Plaintiff has paid the filing fee, and because Plaintiff has not

requested service of process by the U.S. Marshal Service, it is unnecessary for the

Court to address Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis. Accordingly,

Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis, (ECF Nos. 12, 17), is DENIED AS

MOOT.

Plaintiff filed the initial complaint using a pseudonym (“Jane Doe”) for her minor daughter. 1

2 3:12-cv-2444-GPC-MDD

Case 3:12-cv-02444-GPC-MDD Document 31 Filed 05/13/13 Page 2 of 4
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

III. Request for Appointment of Counsel

In an in forma pauperis action, a district court “may request an attorney to

represent any person unable to afford counsel.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). The decision

whether to appoint counsel is within the discretion of the court and is “granted only in

exceptional circumstances.” Agyeman v. Corrections Corp. of America, 390 F.3d

1101, 1103 (9thCir. 2004) (quoting Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1236 (9th Cir.

1984)). The determination of exceptional circumstances “requires at least an

evaluation of the likelihood of the plaintiff’s success on the merits and an evaluation

of the plaintiff’s ability to articulate [her] claims in light of the complexity of the legal

issues involved.” Id. (citations omitted). “Neither of these issues is dispositive and

both must be viewed together before reaching a decision.” Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d

1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991).

As an initial matter, because the Court denies Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed in

Forma Pauperis, Plaintiff is not entitled to appointment of counsel. Moreover, based

on a review of Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, the Court finds Plaintiff has little

to no likelihood ofsuccess on the merits of her claims. Plaintiff’s allegations are based

on a purported “multidimensional sexual experience,” described as “mind f**king” that

Plaintiff allegedly firstsuffered while a student at San Diego State University sometime

between 1981 and 1986. Plaintiff alleges Defendants are engaged in a “cycle of energy

vampirism, predatorial or parasitic lifestyle or demonic possession,” dependant “upon

locating human hosts for their survival.” The Court thus finds Plaintiff’s allegations

are wholly fantastical and therefore frivolous. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319,

328 (U.S. 1989). Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Request for Appointment

of Counsel. Further, because “a parent or guardian cannot bring an action on behalf

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

3 3:12-cv-2444-GPC-MDD

Case 3:12-cv-02444-GPC-MDD Document 31 Filed 05/13/13 Page 3 of 4
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

of a minor child without retaining a lawyer,” Johns v. Cnty. of San Diego, 114 F.3d

874, 877-78 (9th Cir.), the Court will give Plaintiff until June 7, 2013, to retain

counsel. If Plaintiff fails to do so by that date, this case will be DISMISSED WITH

PREJUDICE. See Johns, 114 F.3d at 877-78.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 13, 2013

HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL

United States District Judge

4 3:12-cv-2444-GPC-MDD

Case 3:12-cv-02444-GPC-MDD Document 31 Filed 05/13/13 Page 4 of 4