IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

JODIE MOEN, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE 

STATE OF OREGON, KLAMATH 

COUNTY, 

Defendants. 

CLARKE, Magistrate Judge. 

MEDFORD DIVISION 

Case No. 1: 15-cv-00380-CL 

REPORT& 

RECOMMENDATION 

Plaintiff Jodie Moen seeks to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) and prose with a civil 

action against the Attorney General ofthe State of Oregon and Klamath County. She also moves 

for appointment of pro bono counsel. For the reasons stated below, the court recommends 

Plaintiffs IFP application (#2) and motion (#3) be denied, and her complaint dismissed. 

Page 1 -REPORT & RECOMMENDATION 

Case 1:15-cv-00380-CL Document 6 Filed 03/26/15 Page 1 of 5
STANDARDS 

Generally, all parties instituting any civil action in a United States District Court must 

pay a statutory filing fee. 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). However, the federal in forma pauperis ("IFP") 

statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), provides indigent litigants an opportunity for meaningful access 

to the federal courts despite their inability to pay the costs and fees associated with that access. 

To authorize a litigant to proceed IFP, a court must make two determinations: first, whether the 

litigant is unable to pay the costs of commencing the action, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(l); and second, 

whether the action is "frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be 

granted; or ... seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief." 28 

U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B). 

In regard to the second of these determinations, district courts have the power under 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) to screen complaints even before the service ofthe complaint on the 

defendants, and must dismiss a complaint if it fails to state a claim. Courts apply the same 

standard under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) as when addressing a motion to dismiss under Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012). To 

survive a motion to dismiss under the federal pleading standards, the complaint must state a short 

and plain statement of the claim and "contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state 

a claim for relief that is plausible on its face." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 664 (2009) 

(quoting Bell Atl. Com. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). "A claim has facial plausibility 

when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference 

that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556) 

Pro se pleadings are held to less stringent standards than pleadings by attorneys. Haines 

v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-521 (1972). That is, the court should construe pleadings by prose 

Page 2- REPORT & RECOMMENDATION 

Case 1:15-cv-00380-CL Document 6 Filed 03/26/15 Page 2 of 5
plaintiffs liberally and afford the plaintiffs the benefits of any doubt. Karim-Panahi v. LA. 

Police Dept., 839 F.2d 621, 623 (9th Cir. 1988) (citation omitted). Additionally, a prose litigant 

is entitled to notice of the deficiencies in the complaint and the opportunity to amend, unless the 

complaint's deficiencies cannot be cured by amendment. I d. at 623. 

Generally, there is no constitutional right to counsel in a civil case. United States v. 30.64 

Acres ofLand, 795 F.2d 796, 801 (9th Cir.1986). However, pursuant to 28 U .. S.C. § 1915(e), this 

court has discretion to request volunteer counsel for indigent plaintiffs in exceptional 

circumstances. Id.; Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335 (9th Cir.1990); Wilborn v. 

Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir.1986). While this court may request volunteer counsel 

in exceptional cases, it has no power to make a mandatory appointment. Mallard v. U.S. Dist. 

Court oflowa, 490 U.S. 296, 301-08 (1989). 

In order to determine whether exceptional circumstances exist, this court evaluates the 

plaintiffs likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his or her 

claim prose in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Wood, 900 F.2d at 1335-36; 

Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331; Richards v. Harper, 864 F.2d 85, 87 (9th Cir.1988) (quoting 

Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952,954 (9th Cir.1983)). However, "[n]either of these factors is 

dispositive and both must be viewed together before reaching a decision on request of counsel 

under [former] section 1915(d)." Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331; Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 

1017 (9th Cir.1991). 

DISCUSSION 

On March 5, 2015, Jodie Moen filed a Complaint against the Attorney General ofthe 

State of Oregon and Klamath County (#1). The Complaint states that her claims are based on the 

"Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to Due Process and the ADA." She does not allege 

Page 3 -REPORT & RECOMMENDATION 

Case 1:15-cv-00380-CL Document 6 Filed 03/26/15 Page 3 of 5
any factual claims or assertions, but refers to the "attached letter and brief, second brief, and 

exhibits." The Court has reviewed the Plaintiffs attached documents and cannot discern what 

factual and legal claims are being alleged against each of the named defendants. It appears that 

she believes that the attorney general's office and the Klamath County Sheriffs Office has not 

adequately investigated on her behalf several issues. The first issue appears to be a matter 

regarding a trailer and some third parties that she claims have taken the trailer from her 

unlawfully. The second issue appears to involve failure to sign a restraining order filed by Ms. 

Moen against said third parties. 

Construing the Complaint as liberally as possible, it appears that the Plaintiff would like 

the defendant agencies to investigate her issues and provide her with the relief she seeks against 

the third parties not named in this case. However, this Court has no power to direct state 

agencies or other public bodies to take investigatory or prosecutorial action. Plaintiff has not 

alleged any discernable claims against the defendants by which the Court could grant her relief. 

It is unclear whether or not the deficiencies of the complaint could be cured by amendment. 

Affording the plaintiff the benefit of the doubt, she should be given the opportunity to file an 

amended complaint with instructions to follow the pleading standards as stated above. 

RECOMMENDATION 

The Court recommends that Plaintiffs Complaint (#1) be DISMISSED and that 

Plaintiffs' application to proceed IFP (#2) be DENIED as moot and her motion for pro bono 

counsel (#3) also be DENIED. Plaintiff should be given thirty days to file an optional amended 

complaint. 

_/ 

Page 4- REPORT & RECOMMENDATION 

Case 1:15-cv-00380-CL Document 6 Filed 03/26/15 Page 4 of 5
This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth Circuit 

Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4( a)( 1) 

should not be filed until entry of the district court's judgment or appealable order. 

The Report and Recommendation will be referred to a district judge. Objections to this 

Report and Recommendation, if any, are due fourteen (14) days from today's date. If an 

objection is filed, any response to the objection is due within fourteen (14) days from the date of 

the objection See FED. R. CIV. P. 72, 6. Parties are advised that the failure to file objections 

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. 

Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

DATEDthis ~ :::::-Py~rch,2015. 

MARK 

/~~- b. CLARKE 

United States Magistrate Judge 

Page 5- REPORT & RECOMMENDATION 

Case 1:15-cv-00380-CL Document 6 Filed 03/26/15 Page 5 of 5