Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-00825/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-00825-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

ISAAC HUDSON, JR.,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 14-CV-825-LAB-RBB

ORDER ON MOTION TO

vs. PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

WORKERS COMP APPEALS BOARD,

et al.,

Defendants.

Isaac Hudson filed this action on April 8, along with a motion for leave to proceed IFP. 

I. IFP Motion

All parties instituting a civil action in a district court of the United States, except for

habeas petitioners, must pay a filing fee of $350. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). A party is

excused from paying the fee, however, if the Court grants leave to proceed IFP pursuant to

28 U.S.C. 1915(a). Mr. Hudson has submitted an IFP application that, although out of order

and apparently missing some pages (or at least mistakenly containing pages relating to a

request for counsel), sufficiently demonstrates his inability to pay the $350 filing fee. He is

unemployed, made only $3,000 a year when he was employed, has no money in the bank,

and has no valuable property. His IFP motion is GRANTED.

/ /

/ / 

- 1 -

Case 3:14-cv-00825-LAB-RBB Document 3 Filed 05/06/14 Page 1 of 2
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

II. Initial Screening

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the Court must screen each civil action commenced

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) and dismiss the action if the Court finds it is frivolous or

malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief

from an immune defendant. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 45

(9th Cir. 2001) (“[T]he provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) are not limited to prisoners.”);

Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) “not

only permits but requires” the court to sua sponte dismiss an IFP complaint that fails to state

a claim).

Hudson’s complaint in unintelligible. It is a single page of run-on sentences. It

contains few factual allegations and no legal claims. Apart from mention of a RICO claim,

it appears to deal with a workers compensation dispute that arose in state court. Thus, the

Court has no idea what this case is specifically about, what Mr. Hudson’s claims are, and

whether it even has jurisdiction. 

The complaint is therefore DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Within three weeks

of the date he receives this Order, Mr. Hudson may file a revised complaint that cures these

defects.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 24, 2014

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

- 2 -

Case 3:14-cv-00825-LAB-RBB Document 3 Filed 05/06/14 Page 2 of 2