Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02311/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02311-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 625
Nature of Suit: Drug Related Seizure of Property
Cause of Action: 21:0881 Forfeiture Property - Drugs

---

1

18-CV-2311 JLA (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

MARTINEZ MARTY KELLEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; 

UNITED STATES BORDER PATROL,

Defendants.

Case No.: 18-CV-2311 JLA (AGS)

ORDER (1) GRANTING 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS, 

AND (2) DISMISSING WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE COMPLAINT 

(ECF No. 4)

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Martinez Marty Kelley’s Motion to Proceed 

In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) (“IFP Mot.,” ECF No. 2.) Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, has 

filed a complaint alleging “violation of [his] United States constitutional rights, in breach 

of duty and negligence.” Compl., ECF No. 1 at 2 (emphasis omitted).

IFP MOTION

All parties instituting any civil action, suit, or proceeding in a district court of the 

United States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of 

$400. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed despite a plaintiff’s failure to 

prepay the entire fee only if he is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). A 

federal court may authorize the commencement of an action without the prepayment of 

Case 3:18-cv-02311-JLS-AGS Document 5 Filed 11/06/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

18-CV-2311 JLA (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

fees if the party submits an affidavit, including a statement of assets, showing that he is 

unable to pay the required filing fee. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

In the present case, Plaintiff has submitted an affidavit indicating his total monthly 

income is $1,050 received through Social Security, he is currently unemployed, and he has 

no assets other than a 2004 Nissan Altima. IFP Mot. 2–4. Plaintiff’s monthly expenses 

are $1,075. Id. at 3. The Court concludes that Plaintiff’s application demonstrates he is 

unable to pay the requisite fees and costs. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s 

Motion to Proceed IFP (ECF No. 4).

SCREENING PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(E)(2) & 1915A(B)

The Court must screen every civil action brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) 

and dismiss any case it finds “frivolous or malicious,” “fails to state a claim on which relief 

may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from relief.” 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see also 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.”); Lopez v. 

Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126–27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (noting that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) 

“not only permits but requires a district court to dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint 

that fails to state a claim”).

As amended by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) 

mandates that the court reviewing an action filed pursuant to the IFP provisions of section

1915 make and rule on its own motion to dismiss before directing the Marshal to effect 

service pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(c)(3). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3); 

Navarette v. Pioneer Med. Ctr., No. 12-cv-0629-WQH (DHB), 2013 WL 139925, at *1

(S.D. Cal. Jan. 9, 2013).

All complaints must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that 

the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are 

not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by 

mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) 

(citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 554, 555 (2007)). “[D]etermining whether a 

Case 3:18-cv-02311-JLS-AGS Document 5 Filed 11/06/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

18-CV-2311 JLA (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

complaint states a plausible claim is context-specific, requiring the reviewing court to draw 

on its experience and common sense.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 663–64 (citing Twombly, 550 

U.S. at 556). 

“When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their 

veracity, and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement of relief.” 

Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679. “[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); see 

also Andrews v. King, 393 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2005); Barren v. Harrington, 152 

F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (“The language of § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) parallels the 

language of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).”).

“While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not.” Hoagland 

v. Astrue, No. 1:12-cv-00973-SMS, 2012 WL 2521753, at *3 (E.D. Cal. June 28, 2012) 

(citing Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678). Courts cannot accept legal conclusions set forth in a 

complaint if the plaintiff has not supported her contentions with facts. Id. (citing Iqbal, 

556 U.S. at 679).

The Court reproduces Plaintiff’s Complaint in its entirety below:

My son Marques Lee Kelley[] was arrested in my car, due to the 

fact the Border Patrol in negligence and breach of duty arrested 

him with no evidence of him smuggling any[]one. (1)[]No 

illegal aliens and (2)[]no attempt seen of him picking up any 

illegal aliens. The interr[o]gat[ion] of him was done outside of 

my presence and outside the presence of counsel. They then took 

my car and beg[a]n to send me threatening letters. It was a total 

night[]mare for me for months in violation of my United States 

constitutional rights, in breach of duty and negligence, due to the 

constant har[]assments of the Border Patrol. I filed petitions, 

claims and grievances to the Justice Department, but the United 

States of America and the Justice Department failed to remedy 

and/or stop the misery I was going through.

Compl., ECF No. 1, at 2 (emphasis omitted).

Case 3:18-cv-02311-JLS-AGS Document 5 Filed 11/06/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

18-CV-2311 JLA (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

Although far from clear, it appears from Plaintiff’s Complaint that he asserts claims 

for negligence and violation of his constitutional rights. See id. It is unclear when or where

the alleged seizure or harassment occurred, and Plaintiff does not provide specific facts to 

support his claims for relief. Without further factual allegations, the Court cannot assess 

whether Plaintiff adequately pleads plausible claims for relief. The Court therefore finds 

that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for relief, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), 

and DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s Complaint.

CONCLUSION

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s IFP Motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) (ECF No. 4) is 

GRANTED; and

2. The Court DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s Complaint. 

Plaintiff MAY FILE an amended complaint on or before thirty (30) days from the date on 

which this Order is electronically docketed. Should Plaintiff fail to file an amended 

complaint within the time provided, the Court may enter a final order dismissing this civil 

action for failure to prosecute.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 6, 2018

Case 3:18-cv-02311-JLS-AGS Document 5 Filed 11/06/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4