Stickler v. Internal Revenue Service

Filing 4

ORDER Granting Leave to Procees in Forma Pauperis 2 , Denying Motion for Counsel 3 , and Dismissing Case Without Prejudice. Signed by Judge Larry Alan Burns on 3/14/12. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(kaj)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

PAMELA STICKLER,

12

CASE NO. 12-CV-68-LAB-BGS
Plaintiff,

ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO
PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS,
DENYING MOTION FOR
COUNSEL, AND DISMISSING
CASE

vs.
13
14

INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE,
Defendant.

15
16
17

Ms. Stickler filed this case against the IRS in January of this year. Now pending are

18

her Motion to Proceed IFP and Motion to Appoint Counsel.

19

I.

IFP Motion

20

All parties instituting a civil action in a district court of the United States, except for

21

habeas petitioners, must pay a filing fee of $350. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). A party is

22

excused from paying the fee, however, if the Court grants leave to proceed IFP pursuant to

23

28 U.S.C. 1915(a).

24

demonstrates her inability to pay the $350 filing fee. She was last employed in December

25

of 2009, has no savings or other assets, and appears to rely on churches for assistance.

26

Her Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis is therefore GRANTED.

27

///

28

///

Ms. Stickler has submitted an IFP application that sufficiently

-1-

1

II.

Initial Screening

2

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the Court must screen each civil action commenced

3

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) and dismiss the action if the Court finds it is frivolous or

4

malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief

5

from an immune defendant. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 45

6

(9th Cir. 2001) (“[T]he provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) are not limited to prisoners.”);

7

Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) “not

8

only permits but requires” the court to sua sponte dismiss an IFP complaint that fails to state

9

a claim).

10

The Court finds that Ms. Stickler’s complaint is frivolous and fails to state a claim upon

11

which relief can be granted. Ms. Stickler concedes she has been labeled a vexatious litigant,

12

and her complaint consists of two-handwritten pages in which, among other things, she

13

claims she has asked San Diego police to arrest IRS agents and “the President of U.S.A.

14

who may be part of it.” Ms. Stickler attaches to her complaint numerous pages from the

15

IRS’s website for which her complaint provides no context at all. Her case is DISMISSED

16

WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

17

III.

Motion to Appoint Counsel

18

There is no absolute right to counsel in civil proceedings. Hedges v. Resolution Trust

19

Corp., 32 F.3d 1360, 1363 (9th Cir. 1994). District courts do have discretion, pursuant to 28

20

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), to request that an attorney represent indigent civil litigants, but that

21

requires a substantial showing that Ms. Stickler does not make. Her motion is DENIED.

22
23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: March 14, 2012

25
26

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS
United States District Judge

27
28
-2-