Sandoval v. Ampul

Filing 5

ORDER: (1) granting 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; (2) denying as moot 3 Motion to Appoint Counsel ; (3) Dismissing Complaint with Prejudice. Signed by Judge Janis L. Sammartino on 4/22/11. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(lmt)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

GRACE L. SANDOVAL,

9
10

CASE NO. 11-CV-834 JLS (POR)
Plaintiff,

ORDER: (1) GRANTING MOTION
TO PROCEED IN FORMA
PAUPERIS; (2) DENYING AS
MOOT REQUEST FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL;
(3) DISMISSING COMPLAINT
WITH PREJUDICE

vs.

11
12

MANUEL AMPUL,
Defendant.

13

(Doc. Nos. 2, 3)

14
15

Plaintiff Grace L. Sandoval, proceeding pro se, has filed a complaint (Doc. No. 1), along with

16

a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) (Doc. No. 2) and a request for appointment of

17

counsel (Doc. No. 3). Based on the information provided by Plaintiff, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

18

§ 1915(a),the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed IFP. The Court is obligated to

19

review a complaint filed IFP sua sponte and must dismiss the action if it determines that the complaint

20

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

21

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

22

relief. The complaint is but one in a series of frivolous complaints Plaintiff has filed. Because “it is

23

absolutely clear that the deficiencies in the complaint could not be cured by amendment,” the Court

24

DISMISSES the complaint WITH PREJUDICE. Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1228 n.9 (9th

25

Cir. 1984). As such, the Court DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel.

26
27
28

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: April 22, 2011
Honorable Janis L. Sammartino
United States District Judge
-1-

11cv834