Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-02104/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-02104-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other 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

08cv2104

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GRACE L. SANDOVAL,

Plaintiff,

v.

MELINDA K. VASQUEZ,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 08cv2104 L(WMc)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

[doc. #2]; DENYING MOTION TO

APPOINT COUNSEL [doc. #3]; and

DISMISSING THIS ACTION 

Plaintiff Grace L. Sandoval, proceeding pro se, has submitted a complaint pursuant to 18

U.S.C. § 1962. With the complaint Plaintiff filed a Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis and a

Request for Appointment of Counsel.

 All parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in a United States District Court

must pay a filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed despite a plaintiff’s

failure to prepay the 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). 

Plaintiff’s declaration shows she has insufficient income and assets to pay the filing fee. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is granted.

The court is obligated to review a complaint filed in forma pauperis and must dismiss it if

it determines that the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may

be granted or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28

Case 3:08-cv-02104-L-WMC Document 5 Filed 11/20/08 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

2 08cv2104

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see also Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845 (9th Cir. 2001). “[W]hen

determining whether a complaint states a claim, a court must accept as true all allegations of

material fact and must construe those facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.” Resnick

v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). 

A complaint will be considered frivolous, and therefore subject to dismissal under 

§ 1915(e)(2)(B), “where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Nietzke v. Williams,

490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); see also Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992). A federal

court cannot properly sua sponte dismiss an action commenced in forma pauperis applicant if

the facts alleged in the complaint are merely “unlikely.” Denton, 504 U.S. at 33. However, a

complaint may be properly dismissed sua sponte if the allegations are found to be “fanciful,”

“fantastic,” or “delusional,” or if they rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible.” 

Id. In addition, cases which “merely repeat[] pending or previously alleged claims” may be

dismissed as frivolous. Caro v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 n.2 (9th Cir. 1995). If a case

is classified as frivolous, “there is, by definition, no merit to the underlying action and so no

reason to grant leave to amend.” Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 n.8 (9th Cir. 2000) (en

banc).

In a 37-page complaint, devoid of any headings or even paragraphs, Plaintiff offers a

stream-of-consciousness account of alleged criminal activity. Plaintiff claims her action arises

under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. § 1962(a),

(b), (c) and/or (d). (See docket no. 1, Civil Cover Sheet.) Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c),

“[a]ny person injured in his business or property by reason of a violation of section 1962 of this

chapter may sue therefor in any appropriate United States district court . . ..” Plaintiff’s current

allegations of assault, personal injuries, rape, kidnaping, and burglary, allegedly perpetrated by

Defendant and other persons whose connection to Defendant is unclear, are insufficient to state a

RICO claim. “A civil RICO claim requires allegations of the conduct of an enterprise through a

pattern of racketeering activity that proximately caused injury to the plaintiff.” Swartz v. KPMG

LLP, 476 F.3d 756, 760-61 (9th Cir. 2007). Specifically, the “elements of a civil RICO claim

are as follows: (1) conduct (2) of an enterprise (3) through a pattern (4) of racketeering activity

Case 3:08-cv-02104-L-WMC Document 5 Filed 11/20/08 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

3 08cv2104

(known as predicate acts) (5) causing injury to plaintiff's business or property.” Living Designs,

Inc. v. E.I. Dupont de Nemours & Co., 431 F.3d 353, 361 (9th Cir. 2005). To establish liability,

“one must allege and prove the existence of two distinct entities: (1) a ‘person’; and (2) an

‘enterprise’ that is not simply the same ‘person’ referred to by a different name.” Id. The

allegations in the complaint do not provide a basis for an inference that the alleged criminal

activity was a part of an enterprise or that Defendant was engaged in such an enterprise. 

Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed because it fails to state a claim for a civil RICO

violation.

Additionally, Plaintiff’s allegations are fanciful and fantastic rather than merely unlikely. 

An example of Plaintiff’s “wholly incredible” allegations is that:

Robert Goodman Sr. is joined with many heroin addicts, cocaine addicts,

alcoholics, etc. in San Diego County, California in demanding the drug addicts to

force in the private homes of my two daughters and myself to force their infected

male sex organ in the juman mouth of my two daughters and myself to cause

infection and oral cancer as done to many of my relatives that live in various

counties in California that are victims of rape and have carried two children born

premature with the drug Provera illegally every year for many years that are

kidnapped by the orphan Patrick J. Clark and his gay mate O.J. Simpson and

others to collect welfare fraud for each from various counties in California as done

to my mother Felomena Nungaray Dutra since she, Felomena Nungaray Dutra aka:

Sandoval was eleven years old. 

(Complaint at 9.)

Although in some cases it may be difficult to judge whether a plaintiff’s factual

allegations are truly “fanciful,” “fantastic,” or “delusional” as opposed to merely “unlikely,” this

is not such a case. See Denton, 504 U.S. at 33. These allegations “rise[] to the level of irrational

or the wholly incredible.” Id. Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed as frivolous. See Lopez,

203 F.3d at 1127 n.8.

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / / 

Case 3:08-cv-02104-L-WMC Document 5 Filed 11/20/08 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

4 08cv2104

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. 

Further, the complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. Plaintiff’s motion

for appointment of counsel is DENIED as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 20, 2008

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

COPY TO: 

HON. WILLIAM McCURINE, JR.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL

Case 3:08-cv-02104-L-WMC Document 5 Filed 11/20/08 Page 4 of 4