Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-00997/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-00997-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ARLENE BELL-SPARROW,

Plaintiff,

v.

AMERICA ARBITRATION 

ASSOCIATION,

Defendant.

Case No. 19-cv-00997-TSH 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN 

FORMA PAUPERIS AND SCREENING 

PETITION PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(E)

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Arlene Bell-Sparrow filed the present petition for a writ of mandamus under the 

All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), seeking to compel the American Arbitration Association 

(“AAA”) to initiate an arbitration between her and AT&T. Petition, ECF No. 1. Bell-Sparrow

also filed an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. Appl., ECF No. 2. For the reasons stated 

below, the Court GRANTS the In Forma Pauperis Application and finds the petition fails to state 

a claim for which relief may be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). Bell-Sparrow must file 

an amended petition that addresses the deficiencies identified in this screening order by May 20, 

2019. 

II. BACKGROUND

Bell-Sparrow alleges that she has experienced outages at her AT&T-provided phone, 

internet, and cable service. Pet. at 2. She seeks to assert claims against AT&T in arbitration for 

breach of contract, deceptive business practices, fraud, and false advertising. Id. She attempted to

initiate a claim with the AAA on August 4, 2018. Id. Since filing the claim, she has requested an 

arbitration date three times. Id. However, the AAA declined to initiate arbitration proceedings 

Case 3:19-cv-00997-TSH Document 7 Filed 04/22/19 Page 1 of 4
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

each time because Bell-Sparrow was unable to furnish her contract with AT&T that included the 

relevant arbitration clause. Id., Exhibits at 6-14. Instead, she requested that AAA contact AT&T 

and obtain the contract from them. Id. On February 22, 2019, Bell-Sparrow filed the present 

petition seeking a writ compelling the AAA to begin arbitration proceedings against AT&T. 

III. IN FORMA PAUPERIS APPLICATION

A district court may authorize the start of a civil action in forma pauperis if the court is 

satisfied the would-be plaintiff cannot pay the filling fees required to pursue the lawsuit. See 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). Bell-Sparrow submitted the required documentation demonstrating an 

inability to pay the costs of this action, and it is evident from the Application that Plaintiff’s assets 

and income are insufficient to enable payment of the fees. See Appl. Accordingly, the Court 

GRANTS Bell-Sparrow’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis.

IV. SUA SPONTE SCREENING UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1915(E)(2)

A. Legal Standard

While the Court has granted Bell-Sparrow’s in forma pauperis application, it must also 

review her petition to determine whether the action may be allowed to proceed. The Court must 

dismiss the petition if it is frivolous, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or 

seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(e)(2)(B). To make this determination, courts assess whether there is a factual and legal basis 

for the asserted wrong, “however inartfully pleaded.” Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-

28 (9th Cir. 1984) (quotation omitted). Pro se pleadings are liberally construed. Erickson v. 

Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam). Moreover, the Ninth Circuit has “repeatedly held 

that a district court should grant leave to amend even if no request to amend the pleading was 

made, unless it determines that the pleading could not possibly be cured by the allegation of other 

facts.” Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000). Unless it is clear that no amendment 

can cure the defects of a complaint (or here, a petition), a pro se plaintiff proceeding in forma 

pauperis is entitled to notice and an opportunity to amend before dismissal. Noll v. Carlson, 809 

F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987). 

Case 3:19-cv-00997-TSH Document 7 Filed 04/22/19 Page 2 of 4
3

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

Northern District of California

B. Analysis

Bell-Sparrow brings her petition under 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), which provides that “[t]he 

Supreme Court and all courts established by Act of Congress may issue all writs necessary or 

appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of 

law.” “The All Writs Act is a residual source of authority to issue writs that are not otherwise 

covered by statute. Where a statute specifically addresses the particular issue at hand, it is that 

authority, and not the All Writs Act, that is controlling.” Pennsylvania Bureau of Correction v. 

U.S. Marshals Serv., 474 U.S. 34, 43 (1985). 

In this instance, the All Writs Act is not the controlling authority because Congress has 

enacted the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”). Through the FAA Bell-Sparrow would be able to 

enforce a written arbitration provision “in a contract evidencing a transaction involving 

commerce.” 9 U.S.C. § 2. Section 2 of the FAA provides that arbitration agreements are 

presumptively valid and enforceable1and embraces a “liberal federal policy favoring arbitration 

agreements.” Moses H. Cone Mem. Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 24 (1983). 

Bell-Sparrow alleges that she has a valid contract with AT&T that contains an arbitration 

provision. Pet. at 1. The way to enforce that provision is to file a petition to compel arbitration 

naming AT&T as the defendant – not AAA – because “[t]he FAA permits a district court to issue 

an order compelling parties to arbitrate a dispute subject to an arbitration agreement.” 9 U.S.C. § 

4. Accordingly, if Bell-Sparrow amends her petition to substitute AT&T as the defendant in lieu 

of AAA, and seeks an order compelling arbitration under the FAA, her amended petition may state 

a claim for which relief can be granted. 

V. CONCLUSION

For the reasons above, the Court GRANTS Bell-Sparrow’s Application to Proceed In 

Forma Pauperis and finds that the petition fails to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). 

Bell-Sparrow must file an amended petition addressing the deficiencies explained in this order by 

 

1

“A written provision in . . . a contract evidencing a transaction involving commerce to settle by 

arbitration a controversy thereafter arising out of such contract . . . shall be valid, irrevocable, and 

enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any 

contract.” 9 U.S.C. § 2.

Case 3:19-cv-00997-TSH Document 7 Filed 04/22/19 Page 3 of 4
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

May 20. If she does not file a timely amended petition, the Court will recommend this action be 

dismissed.

Plaintiff may wish to seek assistance from the Legal Help Center, a free service offered by 

the Justice & Diversity Center of the Bar Association of San Francisco, by calling 415-782-8982, 

or by signing up for an appointment on the15th Floor of the Federal Courthouse in San Francisco, 

450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California. There is also a Legal Help Center in 

Oakland, located on the 4th Floor, Room 470S, of the United States Courthouse, 1301 Clay Street, 

Oakland. At the Legal Help Center, you will be able to speak with an attorney who may be able to 

provide basic legal help but not representation. More information is available at 

http://cand.uscourts.gov/helpcentersf. 

Plaintiff may also wish to obtain a copy of the district court’s Handbook for Litigants 

Without a Lawyer. It provides instructions on how to proceed at every stage of your case, 

including discovery, motions, and trial. The handbook is available in person at the Clerk’s Office 

and online at: http://cand.uscourts.gov/prosehandbook.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 22, 2019

THOMAS S. HIXSON

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:19-cv-00997-TSH Document 7 Filed 04/22/19 Page 4 of 4