Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00008/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00008-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

1

17cv0008 BTM (AGS)

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

OLGA H. VILLARS; LINDA A. 

VILLARS,

Plaintiffs,

v.

RICHARD J. VILLARS,

Defendant.

Case No.: 17cv0008 BTM (AGS)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA 

PAUPERIS AND DENYING 

MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT 

OF COUNSEL

On January 3, 2017, Plaintiffs filed their Complaint (ECF No. 1) along with 

an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) (ECF No. 2) and a request for 

appointment of counsel (ECF No. 3). For the reasons discussed below, Plaintiffs’

motion to proceed IFP is GRANTED and their request for appointment of counsel 

is DENIED without prejudice.

DISCUSSION

I. Motion to Proceed IFP

Upon review of Plaintiffs’ affidavit in support of their IFP motion, the Court 

finds that Plaintiffs have made a sufficient showing of inability to pay the filing fee 

required to prosecute this action. Notwithstanding Plaintiffs’ indigence, the Court 

Case 3:17-cv-00008-BTM-AGS Document 4 Filed 04/28/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

17cv0008 BTM (AGS)

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

is under a continuing duty to review a complaint filed by any person proceeding in 

forma pauperis to determine whether the action is “frivolous or malicious” or “fails 

to state a claim on which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i),(ii). 

Plaintiffs brings this action in an attempt to enforce an I-864 Affidavit of 

Support that Defendant Richard Villars, Plaintiff Olga Villar’s ex-husband, 

executed on their behalf. Federal courts have consistently held that a Form I-864 

constitutes a legally binding and enforceable contract between a sponsor and a 

sponsored immigrant. Chesire v. Chesire, No. 3:05-cv-00453, 2006 U.S. Dist. 

LEXIS 26602, at *9 (M.D. Fla. May 4, 2006); Schwartz v. Schwartz, No. MB 08-

001, 2008 Bankr. LEXIS 2205, at *10 (Bankr. 1st Cir. Aug. 26, 2008); Stump v. 

Stump, No. 1:04-cv-253, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26022, at *21 (N.D. Ind. May 27, 

2005). A sponsored immigrant may bring an action to enforce an affidavit of 

support against the sponsor in any appropriate court. 28 U.S.C. § 1183a(e)(1). 

Therefore, the Court finds that the allegations in the Complaint are sufficient to 

satisfy the requirements under section 1915(e)(2)(B). Accordingly, IT IS 

ORDERED THAT:

(1) Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. Plaintiffs

are permitted to prosecute this action without being required to prepay fees or 

costs and without being required to post security.

(2) The Clerk of Court shall file Plaintiffs’ Complaint without prepayment of 

the filing fee.

(3) The United States Marshal shall serve a summons and a copy of the 

Complaint upon Defendant as directed by Plaintiffs on U.S. Marshal form 285. All 

costs of service shall be advanced by the United States.

III. Motion for Appointment of Counsel

Plaintiffs have also filed a Request for Appointment of Counsel. Generally, 

a plaintiff in a civil case has no right to counsel. United States v. 30.64 Acres of 

Land, 795 F.2d 796, 801 (9th Cir. 1986). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(1), a 

Case 3:17-cv-00008-BTM-AGS Document 4 Filed 04/28/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

17cv0008 BTM (AGS)

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

“court may request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford 

counsel.” However, counsel should only be appointed in “exceptional 

circumstances.” Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991). A 

district court should consider both the likelihood of success on the merits and the 

ability of the plaintiff to articulate her claims pro se in light of the complexity of the 

legal issues involved, but “[n]either of these factors is dispositive and both must 

be viewed together before reaching a decision.” Id. 

At this juncture, the Court cannot say that there is any likelihood of success 

on the merits. Therefore, the Court DENIES without prejudice Plaintiffs’ request 

for appointment of counsel. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: April 28, 2017

Case 3:17-cv-00008-BTM-AGS Document 4 Filed 04/28/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3