Rodriguez et al v. San Diego Police Department et al

Filing 4

ORDER granting 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis, denying 3 Motion to Appoint Counsel. The complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. No later than January 10, 2017, Plaintiffs may file an amended complaint that corrects all the problems this order has identified. Signed by Judge Larry Alan Burns on 12/16/16. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(kas)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MARCOS RODRIGUEZ, et al.,

12

CASE NO. 16cv3019-LAB (NLS)
Plaintiffs,

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS;

vs.
13
14
15

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL; AND

SAN DIEGO POLICE DEPARTMENT, et
al.,

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Defendants.

16
17
18
19
20

Plaintiffs filed a hand-written complaint bringing numerous claims, along with a motion
to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) and a motion for appointment of counsel.
The Court has reviewed the motion to proceed IFP and is satisfied Plaintiffs meet the

21

standard.

The motion is therefore GRANTED.

In Marcos Rodriguez’s motion for

22

appointment of counsel, the sole reason why Mr. Rodriguez believes he is entitled to

23

appointment of counsel is his poverty. The motion does not mention any attorneys or legal

24

organizations he contacted about providing low-cost or pro bono legal services, nor does it

25

mention the possibility of a contingency fee arrangement. Instead, he apparently concluded

26

no one would take his case because of his poverty and did not inquire further.

27

Plaintiffs in civil cases have no right to appointment of counsel. Under exceptional

28

circumstances, the Court may request counsel to represent indigent civil litigants. See

-1-

16cv3019

1

Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1)). Here,

2

Mr. Rodriguez has not looked for counsel who might be willing to take his case, and has not

3

given a good explanation why he has not. Because no extraordinary circumstances are

4

present here, the motion is DENIED.

5

The Court will be required to screen the complaint of a plaintiff proceeding IFP, and

6

to dismiss it to the extent it fails to state a claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Lopez v.

7

Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). Here, the complaint seems to be

8

bringing a laundry list of claims. Although the caption names two other Plaintiffs, it is written

9

entirely from Mr. Rodriguez’s perspective and signed only by him. His claims, in summary

10
11
12

are:
1. Twenty years ago someone tried to kill his baby. Someone in the Las Vegas Metropolice force apparently was involved in some way.
2. He was “stacked”1 by the police and gang members.

13
14

3. His neighbor who lives downstairs, and his friends, are irradiating him with “WiFi
Science”.

15

4. He wants to bring all these people to court to investigate the truth.

16

5. He wants to find records concerning his wife’s participation in a murder in Las
Vegas.

17
6. He wants to protect his daughter.
18
19

The complaint falls far short of the standard set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), which

20

requires a short and plain statement of his claim, showing that he is entitled to relief, as well

21

as a short and plain statement of the grounds for the Court’s jurisdiction. In addition, the 20-

22

year-old claim arising from an alleged attempted murder appears to be time-barred.

23

The Court does not appear to have jurisdiction over these claims. The parties are not

24

diverse, so diversity jurisdiction is out of the question. Except for the unclear claim based

25

on police “stacking” him, none of the claims appear to arise under federal law. No basis for

26
27
28

1

The briefing uses this term more than once, so it does not appear to be a misspelling
of “stalking” or some other word. But its meaning is unclear here. “Stacking” can refer to
making gang-related hand signs, but why police would be doing that to him, and what claim
it gives rise to are never explained.
-2-

16cv3019

1

this Court’s exercise of jurisdiction appears in the complaint. It may be that Plaintiffs have

2

some kind of claim that can be raised in state court, but the complaint does not show why

3

this Court can exercise jurisdiction over these claims. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1).

4

The caption does not comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a). It lists three Plaintiffs and no

5

Defendants. On the civil cover sheet, Rodriguez lists the San Diego Police Department, Sgt.

6

David Felkins, Chief of Police Shelly Zimmerman, and the “Sherif[f] of Metro Las Vegas,

7

Nev. & Officers” as Defendants. None of these Defendants’ connection with his claims is

8

ever explained.

9

The complaint should have been signed by all three Plaintiffs. See Fed. R. Civ. P.

10

11(a). An unsigned pleading must be stricken unless the omission is promptly corrected.

11

Id.

12
13

Finally, the handwritten complaint is barely legible, and does not comply with the Civil
Local Rule 5.1(a).

14

The complaint is therefore DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. No later than

15

January 10, 2017, Plaintiffs may file an amended complaint that corrects all the problems

16

this order has identified. If they do not do this within the time permitted, or if their amended

17

complaint does not correct the problems this order has identified, the case will be dismissed

18

without leave to amend.

19
20
21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: December 16, 2016

23
24

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS
United States District Judge

25
26
27
28
-3-

16cv3019