Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01847/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01847-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1361 Petition for Writ of Mandamus

---

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

BARBARA SUSAN,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 16cv1847-LAB (JLB)

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT

PREJUDICE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS;

AND

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

vs.

BETA HEALTHCARE GROUP,

Defendants.

Plaintiff Barbara Susan, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint, which she calls a

petition for writ of mandamus, along with a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis

(“IFP”).

According to the IFP motion, Susan has $150 in cash and no other assets or income

of any kind, including public assistance. The motion refers to occasional employment, but

does not identify any earnings. According to the motion, her only expenses are $200 per

month for food; she pays nothing for housing, clothing, health care, transportation, or 1

anything else. While it’s likely Susan could qualify for IFP status, her application is

incomplete. She does not explain how she pays for her living expenses. Furthermore, the

underlying dispute pertains to medical records, so it appears she has or recently had health

care expenses of some kind. 

 The address she provided in her pleadings is a rented mailbox. 1

- 1 - 16cv1847

Case 3:16-cv-01847-LAB-JLB Document 3 Filed 07/26/16 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

Because it is incomplete, the IFP motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

Assuming Susan successfully moves to proceed IFP, the Court will be required to

screen her complaint, and to dismiss it to the extent it fails to state a claim. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(B); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). In the

interests of efficiency and speedy resolution of this action, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 1, the Court

will conduct the screening now. The Court is also obligated to confirm its own jurisdiction,

sua sponte if necessary. See United Investors Life Ins. Co. v. Waddell & Reed Inc., 360

F.3d 960, 966 (9th Cir. 2004).

The complaint asks the Court to order a clinic or health center to retain Susan’s

medical records so that she can inspect them or use them as evidence in an unidentified

proceeding. According to exhibits attached to the complaint, Susan believes someone else

annotated or altered one of the documents in her file. What documents Susan is asking for

and why she needs to review them are not clearly explained. 

The complaint does not include either a “short and plain statement of the grounds for

the court’s jurisdiction,” or “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader

is entitled to relief . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. Besides failing to state a claim upon which relief

can be granted, the complaint does not explain why the Court has jurisdiction over this

dispute. The parties do not appear to be diverse, and in any event the amount in

controversy does not appear to be met. And no basis for federal question jurisdiction is

apparent in the complaint. The complaint is therefore DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE,

both for failure to state a claim and for failure to invoke the Court’s jurisdiction.

No later than August 22, 2016, Susan may either pay the filing fee or file a renewed

IFP motion, and also file an amended complaint. The renewed IFP motion and amended 

complaint must correct the defects this order has identified. “Filed” means these documents

must be received and docketed by the due date, not merely mailed or postmarked. If Susan 

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

- 2 - 16cv1847

Case 3:16-cv-01847-LAB-JLB Document 3 Filed 07/26/16 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

does not do both of these within the time permitted, this action will be dismissed

without leave to amend.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 25, 2016

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

- 3 - 16cv1847

Case 3:16-cv-01847-LAB-JLB Document 3 Filed 07/26/16 Page 3 of 3