Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01585/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01585-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983bv Bivens Non-Prisoner

---

1

19-cv-1585-CAB-BGS

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

RICHARD TURFLEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF SAN DIEGO et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 19-cv-1585-CAB-BGS

ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION 

FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN 

FORMA PAUPERIS AND SUA 

SPONTE DISMISSING COMPLAINT

On August 23, 2019, Plaintiff, a non-prisoner, filed a complaint that names the City 

of San Diego (the “City”), the San Diego Police Department (the “SDPD”), the County of 

San Diego (the “County”), and the “San Diego County Prosecutor” (the “Prosecutor”) as 

defendants. [Doc. No. 1.] Plaintiff did not pay the requisite filings fees and instead filed 

an application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). [Doc. No. 2.] As discussed 

below, Plaintiff’s application to proceed IFP is granted, and the complaint is dismissed 

pursuant to the sua sponte screening required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

I. Application to Proceed IFP

Plaintiff moves to proceed IFP under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 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 $400. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); CivLR 

4.5. An action may proceed despite a plaintiff’s failure to prepay the entire fee only if the 

Case 3:19-cv-01585-CAB-BGS Document 4 Filed 08/26/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

19-cv-1585-CAB-BGS

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

plaintiff is granted leave to proceed IFP under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See Rodriguez v. Cook, 

169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). All actions sought to be filed IFP under § 1915 must 

be accompanied by an affidavit, signed by the applicant under penalty of perjury, that 

includes a statement of all assets which shows inability to pay initial fees or give security. 

CivLR 3.2.a. Here, Plaintiff’s application demonstrates that Plaintiff lacks the financial 

resources to pay the filing fees and still afford the necessities of life. See Escobedo v. 

Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 2015); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 

II. Sua Sponte Screening

Notwithstanding the foregoing, a complaint filed by any person seeking to proceed 

IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) is subject to mandatory and sua sponte review and 

dismissal should the Court determine, inter alia, it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state 

a claim upon which relief may be granted. 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.”). Congress enacted this safeguard because “a litigant whose filing 

fees and court costs are assumed by the public, unlike a paying litigant, lacks an economic 

incentive to refrain from filing frivolous, malicious, or repetitive lawsuits.” Denton v. 

Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31 (1992) (quoting Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324 

(1989)).

“The standard for determining whether a plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon 

which relief can be granted under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is the same as the Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) standard for failure to state a claim.” Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 

1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012). To survive a motion to dismiss, the complaint must contain “a 

short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). “[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, 556 U.S. 662, 

678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 547 (2007)). Detailed 

factual allegations are not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of 

action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. 

Case 3:19-cv-01585-CAB-BGS Document 4 Filed 08/26/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

19-cv-1585-CAB-BGS

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

The complaint here is handwritten on a pre-printed form. In the section with the 

heading, “Statement of Claim”, the complaint makes a one sentence allegation against each 

defendant. As for the City, the complaint alleges that it did not stop systemic racism on 

the police force and that allowing the police department to investigate itself is a conflict of 

interest. As for the SDPD, the complaint alleges that the SDPD has a conflict of interest 

in investigating its own crime (the complaint does not identify the alleged crime in 

question), and that it does not train officers in race relations and avoiding excessive force. 

As for the County, the complaint alleges that the justice system is “full of systemic racism” 

and that the County did not end the racism by preventing police from filing charges against 

people the police have beaten. Finally, as for the Prosecutor, the complaint alleges that it 

files charges against people the police have beaten and not against the police officers.

In the section of the complaint form with the heading “Relief You Request,” the 

complaint states:

Order the City and County to cease and desist funding the Prosecutor and the 

police department until they resolve the conflict of interest and take steps to 

end systemic racism and police brutality. Dismiss the charges against me and 

pay me for a great deal of pain and suffering. Place an injunction against all 

City, County, State, and local courts in the Court’s jurisdiction to stop filing 

unjust charges against people after the police have beaten them up if the 

charges dismissed. I want to be able to sophenia [sic] my audiologist and the 

doctor who repaired my eye, emergency room records when I was passing out 

in pain, police officers employment records, jail records and witnesses to 

show that my girlfriend who called 911 and enrage police causing them to 

beat me has multiple personalities. My public defender is not sopheniaing 

[sic] people and records I need for my defence.

In short, the allegations in the “statement of claim” section of the complaint do not 

state a plausible claim for relief for Plaintiff. The complaint does not allege any facts about 

actions by any of the defendants against Plaintiff personally. Absent factual allegations 

about any injuries suffered by Plaintiff as a result of alleged wrongful actions by 

Defendants, Plaintiff does not have standing to challenge alleged systemic racism by 

Defendants. 

Case 3:19-cv-01585-CAB-BGS Document 4 Filed 08/26/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

19-cv-1585-CAB-BGS

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

Further, the Court cannot provide most of the relief requested by Plaintiff. Plaintiff 

does not have standing to seek general injunctive relief against the City and County 

concerning the funding of the Prosecutor and SDPD. This Court cannot issue a general 

injunction against state courts concerning the filing of criminal charges. Finally, this Court 

cannot order a state court to dismiss pending criminal charges against Plaintiff, order a 

state court to allow discovery in a pending criminal case, or order Plaintiff’s public 

defender to take such discovery.

III. Disposition

Plaintiff’s allegations are conclusory and fail to state a plausible claim for relief. The 

complaint also does not seek relief that Plaintiff has standing to obtain and that this Court 

has the jurisdiction to provide. For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ordered that 

Plaintiff’s application to proceed IFP is GRANTED, and the complaint is DISMISSED1

for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Plaintiff may file an 

amended complaint no later than September 26, 2019.

It is SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 26, 2019

 

1

In light of this ruling, Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel [Doc. No. 3] is DENIED as moot.

Case 3:19-cv-01585-CAB-BGS Document 4 Filed 08/26/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4