Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02380/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02380-0/pdf.json

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

---

1

18cv2380-LAB (KSC)

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

GILBERT ACEVES,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES OF NORTH 

AMERICA, et al.,

Defendant.

Case No.: 18cv2380-LAB (KSC)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA 

PAUPERIS; AND

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiff Gilbert Aceves, who was a Defendant in case 15cr2995-AJB, United 

States v. Milam, et al., filed this action without paying the filing fee. He also filed a 

motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”).

IFP Motion

Aceves’ IFP motion is almost devoid of information. He used a form to file 

his IFP motion, which prompts him for information, but he has written “0” or “N/A”

in response to almost every question. If accepted as true, this means he has no

assets or income of any kind, has not had any income in the past two years, and 

does not expect that to change in the coming year. He also says he has no 

expenses of any kind. In response to the question asking him to provide other 

information that will help explain why he cannot pay the cost of these proceedings, 

he has written “Upon request.” The IFP motion is DENIED.

Case 3:18-cv-02380-LAB-KSC Document 3 Filed 03/21/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

18cv2380-LAB (KSC)

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 Court is also authorized to deny IFP if the complaint would be subject to 

dismissal after the mandatory screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). See Minetti v. 

Port of Seattle, 152 F.3d 1113, 1115 (9th Cir. 1998). That serves as an alternative 

basis for denial of IFP here.

Complaint

Aceves’ complaint seeking damages against those who were involved in the 

criminal case, and an injunction forbidding them from violating his civil rights. He 

has also attached, as an exhibit, a coram nobis petition that is pending before 

Judge Battaglia. His complaint, which is wholly conclusory, claims that all officers 

of the U.S. Court system, Judge Battaglia, the U.S. Attorney, and Aceves’ own 

counsel colluded and conspired to violate his constitutional rights in connection 

with his criminal case. He also mentions an unlawful arrest, illegal search and 

seizure, denial of due process, lack of Miranda warnings, manipulation of 

evidence, and lack of federal jurisdiction, and refers the Court to his coram nobis

petition for details. The petition does not allege collusion or a conspiracy among

Defendants.

The United States enjoys sovereign immunity from his suit for damages in 

connection with his criminal case and conviction, see United States v. Mitchell, 445 

U.S. 535, 538 (1980), and has not waived this immunity. See United States v. 

Idaho, 508 U.S. 1, 6–7 (1993). Judge Battaglia, all court employees, and the 

prosecutor are entitled to absolute immunity for the same claims. See Ashelman 

v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072, 1075 (9th Cir.1986) (en banc) (judges); Pomerantz v. 

County of Los Angeles, 674 F.2d 1288, 1291 (9th Cir.1982) (judges and court 

employees); Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 419 n. 13 (1976) (prosecutors). 

He has not adequately alleged any claims against his own attorney. To the extent 

Aceves is claiming he was wrongly convicted or is seeking damages for alleged 

violations that would render his conviction constitutionally infirm, his claims are 

barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 484–85 (1994). He has no standing 

Case 3:18-cv-02380-LAB-KSC Document 3 Filed 03/21/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

18cv2380-LAB (KSC)

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

to seek prospective injunctive relief on behalf of others accused of crimes. Any 

claim for prospective injunctive relief on his own behalf is either unripe or is 

subsumed within his already-pending coram nobis or § 2255 motions.

Conclusion and Order

The complaint is frivolous, and is DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO 

AMEND.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 21, 2019

Hon. Larry Alan Burns

Chief United States District Judge

Case 3:18-cv-02380-LAB-KSC Document 3 Filed 03/21/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3