Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-03029/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-03029-0/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

ROGER WARREN,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 12-CV-3029-LAB-BLM

ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO

vs. PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS,

QUALITY LOAN SERVICE

CORPORATION, et al.,

Defendants.

Roger Warren filed this case on December 20, 2012. Now pending is his Motion to

Proceed IFP.

I. IFP Motion

All parties instituting a civil action in a district court of the United States, except for

habeas petitioners, must pay a filing fee of $350. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). A party is

excused from paying the fee, however, if the Court grants leave to proceed IFP pursuant to

28 U.S.C. 1915(a). Warren has submitted an IFP application that sufficiently demonstrates

his inability to pay the $350 filing fee. He is unemployed, has only $400 in the bank, has

hospital and school debts that exceed $33,000, and has received only $4,500 as a gift in the

past year. His IFP motion is GRANTED.

II. Initial Screening

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the Court must screen each civil action commenced

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) and dismiss the action if the Court finds it is frivolous or

malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief

- 1 -

Case 3:12-cv-03029-LAB-BLM Document 4 Filed 01/02/13 Page 1 of 2
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

from an immune defendant. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 45

(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) (28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) “not

only permits but requires” the court to sua sponte dismiss an IFP complaint that fails to state

a claim).

This is a foreclosure case. Warren’s actual complaint is approximately 35 pages, but

he has submitted over 400 pages along with it. The bulk of this appears to consist of

materials related to a settlement Bank of America entered into with the United States in the

District of Columbia, the relevance of which is questionable. The complaint also has some

markings of a form complaint that Warren has tried to tailor to the facts of this case. For

example, the opening paragraph implies that ReconTrust—a familiar defendant in

foreclosure cases filed in this Court—is a Defendant in this case, but it is not named or

identified as such. The complaint also contains legal authority that appears to have been

lifted from a summary judgment motion. Taken as a whole, the Court finds that Warren’s

complaint fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted, and may even be frivolous. 

With all due respect to Warren, he seems to be a distressed homeowner who simply cobbled

together any and all legal authority he could in order to contest the foreclosure of his home

and his eviction from it. 

The complaint is therefore DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Within three weeks

of the date he receives this Order, Warren may file a concise complaint that is particular to

the facts of his case against Defendants. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 28, 2012

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

- 2 -

Case 3:12-cv-03029-LAB-BLM Document 4 Filed 01/02/13 Page 2 of 2