Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00969/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00969-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
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

11cv969

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRUCE DERRICK CALHOUN,

Plaintiff,

CIVIL CASE NO. 11-CV-969 MMA

(BGS)

vs. ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT

WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND;

DENYING MOTION TO PROCEED

IN FORMA PAUPERIS; AND

DENYING AS MOOT REQUEST

FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

[Doc. Nos. 2, 3]

SAN DIEGO COUNTY, et al.

Defendants.

Plaintiff Bruce Derrick Calhoun, proceeding pro se, has filed a complaint [Doc. No. 1], along

with a Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) [Doc. No. 2] and a Request for Appointment

Counsel [Doc. No. 3]. In his affidavit supporting his motion to proceed IFP, Plaintiff attests that he

receives $1,074 per month in social security. Although a party need not be completely destitute to

proceed IFP, a party must still show he or she cannot pay the filing fee and still provide the

“necessities of life” for his or her family. Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331,

339-40 (1948). Plaintiff has failed to satisfy that requirement, and therefore is not excused from

paying the $350 filing fee. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s IFP

motion. 

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

person seeking to proceed IFP is subject to sua sponte review and dismissal by the Court. The Court

is obligated to review a complaint and must dismiss the action if it determines the complaint is

frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim for relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). After careful

review, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s complaint is frivolous and void of any plausible claims for

relief. The Court also notes Plaintiff’s allegations are similar to those set forth in previously filed

(and dismissed) complaints in this Court. See, e.g. Calhoun v. San Diego County, et al., USDC,

Case 3:11-cv-00969-MMA-BGS Document 4 Filed 05/10/11 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

11cv969

Southern District of California, Case No. 11cv425 JAH.

Because “it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by

amendment,” the Court DISMISSES the complaint without leave to amend. Franklin v. Murphy,

245 F.2d 1221, 1228 n.9 (9th Cir. 1984). As such, the Court DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiff’s

Request for Appointment of Counsel. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 10, 2011

Hon. Michael M. Anello

United States District Judge

Case 3:11-cv-00969-MMA-BGS Document 4 Filed 05/10/11 Page 2 of 2