Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-02064/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-02064-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-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 - 08cv2064

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRUCE DERRICK CALHOUN,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 08cv2064 JM(POR)

ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS; 

DISMISSING ACTION FOR

FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM;

DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

vs.

VA MC SAN DIEGO; et al.,

Defendants.

On or about November 7, 2008 Plaintiff commenced the present action VA MC San Diego,

Sedgwick CMS, EEOC, San Diego County, Escondido, UCSD, SDSU, Greyhound, Citibank, Sea

World, Wells Fargo Bank, and the Bank of America seeking damages in the amount of

$100,000,000,000. In a one paragraph complaint, Plaintiff alleges that “the County of San Diego

murdered my entire family and all of my friend[s] and attempted many times to murder me - - they

are attempting to murder me on video surveillance by the F.B.I.” (Complaint). Plaintiff also moves

to proceed in forma pauperis and for appointment of counsel.

The Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

Plaintiff moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915. Plaintiff

declares that he is a disabled veteran, unemployed, receives disability benefits, and possesses no real

estate, financial instruments or other valuable property. Consequently, the court grants Plaintiff leave

to prosecute this action without prepayment of the filing fees.

Case 3:08-cv-02064-JM-POR Document 4 Filed 05/05/09 Page 1 of 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

- 2 - 08cv2064

Sua Sponte Screening of the Complaint

The court is obligated to review a complaint filed IFP and must dismiss if the action is

frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is

immune from suit. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Courts must construe the complaint in the light most

favorable to the plaintiff. Concha v. London, 62 F.3d 1493, 1500 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. dismissed, 116

S. Ct. 1710 (1996). Accordingly, courts must accept as true all material allegations in the complaint,

as well as reasonable inferences to be drawn from them. Holden v. Hagopian, 978 F.2d 1115, 1118

(9th Cir. 1992). However, conclusory allegations of law and unwarranted inferences are insufficient

to defeat a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. In Re Syntex Corp. Sec. Litig., 95 F.3d 922, 926 (9th Cir. 1996).

The court concludes that Plaintiff fails to allege a cognizable legal theory or sufficient facts

to support a cognizable legal theory. The court does not have to accept as true allegations that “are

contradicted by the record, inherently incredible, or conclusions rather than statements of fact.”

United States v. Michaud, 925 F.2d 37, 39 (1st Cir. 1991). Here, the allegations are fantastical and

simply not credible. Plaintiff alleges that a disparate collection of entities, including the County of

San Diego, two local universities, Sea World, Greyhound, and two banks murdered all his family and

friends. This is simply not credible. 

While leave to amend is to be granted liberally to pro se litigants, courts should dismiss a

complaint for failure to state a claim when the factual allegations are insufficient “to raise a right to

relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp v. Twombly, __550 U.S. __, 127 S.Ct. 1955

(2007) (the complaint’s allegations must “plausibly suggest[]” that the pleader is entitled to relief).

As there appears to be no circumstances under which Plaintiff can plausibly state a claim, the court

dismisses the complaint with prejudice and without leave to amend.

Motion for Appointment of Counsel

The Constitution provides no right to appointment of counsel in a civil case. See Lassiter v.

Dept. of Social Services, 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), however, district

courts are granted discretion to appoint counsel for indigent persons under “exceptional

circumstances.” Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991). “A finding of exceptional

circumstances requires an evaluation of both the ‘likelihood of success on the merits and the ability

Case 3:08-cv-02064-JM-POR Document 4 Filed 05/05/09 Page 2 of 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

- 3 - 08cv2064

of the plaintiff to articulate [his or her] claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues

involved.’ Neither of these issues is dispositive and both must be viewed together before reaching a

decision.’” Id. (quoting Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986)).

Here, Plaintiff fails to establish even a minimal likelihood of success on the merits. Under

these circumstances, the Court denies Plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel because it is not

warranted by the interests of justice. LaMere v. Risley, 827 F.2d 622, 626 (9th Cir. 1987). 

In sum, the court grants the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, dismisses the

complaint with prejudice and without leave to amend, and denies the motion for appointment of

counsel. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 5, 2009

 Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller

 United States District Judge

cc: All parties

Case 3:08-cv-02064-JM-POR Document 4 Filed 05/05/09 Page 3 of 3