Smith v. Cook

Filing 5

AMENDED ORDER granting 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; Sua Sponte Dismissing for Failure to State a Claim; denying as moot 3 Motion to Appoint Counsel; the Court: (1) GRANTS Plaintiff's motion to proceed IFP; (2) sua sponte DISMISSES Plaintiff's Complaint WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to state a claim; and (3) DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiffs motion to appoint counsel. Pursuant to this Order, Plaintiff is granted thirty (30) days from the date of this Amended Order to fil e a new motion to proceed IFP. If Plaintiff chooses to file a new motion to proceed IFP, she must also file her proposed first amended complaint with said motion. If Plaintiff does not file a new motion to proceed IFP and proposed first amended complaint, this action will be dismissed. Signed by Judge Anthony J. Battaglia on 5/16/2017.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(acc)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CAROL ADRIANNE SMITH, Plaintiff, 12 13 Case No.: 17cv00961-AJB-WVG AMENDED ORDER: v. (1) GRANTING MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS; (Doc. No. 2) 14 15 16 ANDY COOK, Defendant. (2) SUA SPONTE DISMISSING FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM; AND (Doc. No. 1) 17 18 19 (3) DENYING AS MOOT MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL (Doc. No. 3) 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 On May 9, 2017, Plaintiff Carol Smith (“Plaintiff”), a non-prisoner proceeding pro se, commenced this action against Defendant Andy Cook (“Defendant”). (Doc. No. 1.) On the same day, Plaintiff also moved to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), and filed a motion to appoint counsel. (Doc. Nos. 2, 3.) For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to proceed IFP, sua sponte DISMISSES 1 17cv00961-AJB-WVG 1 Plaintiff’s Complaint for failure to state a claim, and DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiff’s 2 motion to appoint counsel. 3 I. Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 4 All parties instituting any civil action, suit, or proceeding in a district court of the 5 United States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of 6 $350. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed despite a plaintiff’s failure to prepay 7 the entire fee only if the plaintiff is granted leave to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 8 1915(a). See Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). All actions sought 9 to be filed IFP pursuant to § 1915 must be accompanied by an affidavit, signed by the 10 applicant under penalty of perjury, that includes a statement of all assets which show 11 inability to pay initial fees or give security. S.D. CivLR 3.2.a. Here, Plaintiff states that she 12 has two children ages twenty-one and thirteen that depend on her for support. (Doc. No. 2 13 at 3.) The affidavit submitted by Plaintiff also indicates that she is employed, she receives 14 approximately $900 per month in salary and $1732 in child support, and has two checking 15 accounts with a total amount of $1000. (Id. at 1-2.) However, Plaintiff has monthly 16 expenses amounting to $3733, falling short of her monthly income by over a thousand 17 dollars. Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff meets the § 1915(a) requirements and 18 GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to proceed IFP. 19 II. Sua Sponte Dismissal for Failure to State a Claim 20 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), a court may dismiss a case at any time if it 21 determines the plaintiff has failed to state a claim on which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. 22 § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Here, Plaintiff’s fifty-four page Complaint alleges a variety of causes 23 of action including but not limited to: (1) irrelevant evidence; (2) willful suppression of 24 evidence; (3) failure to explain or deny; (4) conclusive presumption; (5) statute of frauds; 25 (6) breach of fiduciary duty; and (7) racial discrimination. (Doc. No. 1 at 27-34.) Though 26 the Court believes that Plaintiff’s underlying complaint stems from Defendant’s alleged 27 failure to successfully represent Plaintiff in a family court case, Plaintiff’s vague and 28 unclear pleading fails to state facts to support a cognizable constitutional or statutory cause 2 17cv00961-AJB-WVG 1 of action. Moreover, the majority of Plaintiff’s causes of action depend on the California 2 Evidence Code, which are inapplicable to Plaintiff’s instant federal case. 3 As a result, Plaintiff has not presented a sufficient basis for a cognizable claim on 4 which relief may be granted. Pursuant to § 1915(e)(2), the Court DISMISSES the 5 Complaint WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to state a claim. 6 III. Motion to Appoint Counsel 7 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), courts are granted discretion to appoint counsel for 8 indigent persons under “exceptional circumstances.” Agyeman v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 390 9 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004). As Plaintiff has yet to pay the filing fee, and her Complaint 10 has been dismissed without prejudice, the motion for counsel is DENIED AS MOOT. The 11 Court notes, however, that the Constitution provides no right of appointment of counsel in 12 a civil case unless an indigent litigant may lose his physical liberty if he loses the litigation. 13 Lassiter v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981). 14 IV. Conclusion 15 For the reasons set forth above, the Court: 16 (1) GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to proceed IFP; 17 (2) sua sponte DISMISSES Plaintiff’s Complaint WITHOUT PREJUDICE for 18 failure to state a claim; and 19 (3) DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel. 20 Pursuant to this Order, Plaintiff is granted thirty (30) days from the date of this Amended 21 Order to file a new motion to proceed IFP. If Plaintiff chooses to file a new motion to 22 proceed IFP, she must also file her proposed first amended complaint with said motion. If 23 Plaintiff does not file a new motion to proceed IFP and proposed first amended complaint, 24 this action will be dismissed. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 7 Dated: May 16, 2016 27 28 3 17cv00961-AJB-WVG 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 4 17cv00961-AJB-WVG

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?