Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01093/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01093-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 18:1961 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

- 1 - 06cv1093-h (nls)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANITA M. MEYERS,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 06CV1093-H (NLS)

ORDER DENYING MOTION

TO PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS AND DISMISSING

ACTION WITHOUT

PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE

TO STATE A CLAIM

vs.

JANE D. HOLKIM, et al.,

Defendant.

On May 18, 2006, Plaintiff Anita Myers (“Plaintiff”), pro se, filed a complaint.

(Doc. No. 1.) She filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) on the same day.

(Doc. No. 2.) On June 13, 2006, Plaintiff filed her first amended complaint against

numerous Defendants for claims including violations of the Racketeer Influenced and

Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), Pub. L. 91-452, 84 Stat. 941, federal civil rights

violations, and violations of various bankruptcy statutes. (Doc. No. 3.) For the

following reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to proceed IFP and

DISMISSES the first amended complaint for failure to state a claim.

Discussion

1. Motion to Proceed IFP

 Plaintiff moves to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Section 1915(a)

allows a court to authorize the commencement of a lawsuit without payment of the

Case 3:06-cv-01093-H-NLS Document 4 Filed 09/21/06 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 - 06cv1093-h (nls)

filing fee if the plaintiff submits an affidavit stating his or her assets that demonstrates

an inability to pay the filing fee. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 

According to Plaintiff’s application, she is not employed. She has $116.00 in a

checking account and a one-half interest in two Volvo sedans. Plaintiff does not list any

debts or dependents. Based on this information, the Court concludes that Plaintiff does

not meet the minimum requirements to proceed IFP. Accordingly, the Court DENIES

her motion. If Plaintiff wishes to proceed, she must pay the requisite filing fee pursuant

to Local Civil Rule 4.5 on or before October 23, 2006. 

2. Sua Sponte Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 

Notwithstanding payment of any filing fee or portion thereof, a complaint filed

by any person proceeding in forma pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)

is subject to a mandatory and sua sponte review. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Dismissal by

the Court is appropriate to the extent that the complaint is “frivolous, or malicious; fails

to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or seeks monetary relief against a

defendant immune from such relief.” 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.”).

“[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); Barren

v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (noting that 1915(e)(2) “parallels

the language of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)”). Under Fed. R. Civ. P.

12(b)(6), a complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it

appears beyond a doubt that the plaintiff could prove no set of facts in support of his or

her claim for relief. See Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957); Bautista v. Los

Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 842 (9th Cir. 2000). Conclusory allegations of law,

however, are insufficient to defeat a motion to dismiss. Epstein v. Washington Energy

Co., 83 F.3d 1136, 1140 (9th Cir. 1996). Courts grant 12(b)(6) relief only where a

Case 3:06-cv-01093-H-NLS Document 4 Filed 09/21/06 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 - 06cv1093-h (nls)

plaintiff’s complaint lacks a “cognizable legal theory” or sufficient facts to support a

cognizable legal theory. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dept., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir.

1990). 

Plaintiff presents numerous causes of action, including RICO violations,

violations of bankruptcy statutes, and civil rights violations. Apparently, Plaintiff’s

allegations stem from her alleged arrest by officers in the Murrieta Police Department

on April 26, 2006, after they approached her in her car on Broken Arrow Way in

Murrieta, California. Plaintiff claims that the officers arrested her without a “summons,

complaint and signed warrant” and failed to administer her rights under Miranda v.

Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). Plaintiff claims that the officers of the Murrieta Police

Department are terrorists who are waging a “mixed war” against her. She contends that

they have committed treason against the United States. She further claims that the

officers are guilty of conspiracy to raise revenue by fraud and extortion in violation of

unspecified provisions of RICO. Finally, Plaintiff alleges the officers violated the

Uniform Commercial Code.

Plaintiffs first amended complaint contains summary allegations and lacks

sufficient facts to support a cognizable legal theory. Balistreri, 901 F.2d at 699.

Therefore, the Court concludes that all causes of action in the complaint fail to state a

claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES the first

amended complaint without prejudice for failure to state a claim and GRANTS Plaintiff

until October 23, 2006, to file an amended complaint correcting the deficiencies in the

first amended complaint.

/ / / /

/ / / /

/ / / /

/ / / /

/ / / /

/ / / /

Case 3:06-cv-01093-H-NLS Document 4 Filed 09/21/06 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 - 06cv1093-h (nls)

Conclusion

For the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to proceed

in forma pauperis and DISMISSES Plaintiff’s first amended complaint without

prejudice for failure to state a claim. The Court GRANTS Plaintiff until October 23,

2006, to file an amended complaint that addresses the deficiencies in the pleadings set

forth above and the requisite filing fee.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 21, 2006

MARILYN L. HUFF, District Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

COPIES TO:

Anita M. Myers

7107 Broadway Ave. #101

Lemon Grove, CA 91945

Case 3:06-cv-01093-H-NLS Document 4 Filed 09/21/06 Page 4 of 4