Spencer v. Johanson

Filing 4

ORDER Granting 2 Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis; Order Denying 3 Motion for Appointment of Counsel; and Order of Dismissal. The IFP motion shows Spencer lacks the funds to pay the filing fee, and the motion is granted. The complaint is dism issed without prejudice for failure to state a claim, and for failure to invoke the Court's jurisdiction. The motion for appointment of counsel is denied as moot. Signed by Judge Larry Alan Burns on 9/11/2017. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(lrf) Modified on 9/12/2017 to update docket text (lrf).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ALONZO SPENCER,

Case No.: 17cv1798-LAB (JLB)
Plaintiff,

12
13

v.

14

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS;

PIER JOHANSON,

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL;
AND

Defendant.

15
16
17
18

ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Plaintiff Alonzo Spencer, proceeding pro se, filed his complaint in this case along

19

with a motion to proceed in forma pauperis and a motion for appointment of counsel.

20

The IFP motion shows Spencer lacks the funds to pay the filing fee, and the motion is

21

GRANTED. The motion for appointment of counsel, however, is incomplete. Spencer

22

used a form to prepare this motion. In the area where he was to have described his efforts

23

to find an attorney to represent him, Spencer has said nothing.

24

A complaint filed by any person seeking to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

25

§ 1915(a) is subject to a mandatory and sua sponte review and dismissal by the court to

26

the extent it is “frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be

27

granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C.

28

§ 1915(e)(2)(B).
1
17cv1798-LAB (JLB)

1

Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), every complaint filed in federal court must contain a

2

short and plain statement of the grounds for the Court’s jurisdiction, and a short and plain

3

statement of the claim showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. The complaint,

4

which is illegible in places, alleges that Spencer worked for Falkenburg/Gilliam, Inc.

5

Later Pier Johanson was hired. Spencer alleges that Johanson harassed him on the job.

6

The complaint also says Johanson “took the Plaintiff to his Kang[a]roo Court” after

7

which Spencer was fired. Spencer is suing Johanson only, not Falkenburg/Gilliam or

8

anyone else. A review of state court records shows that spencer sued Johanson in 2009

9

for harassment, and Falkenberg/Gilliam Associates in 2013 for wrongful termination. 1

10

Besides failing to state a claim, the complaint identifies no basis for the Court’s

11

exercise of jurisdiction in this case. Spencer’s alleged harassment by a co-worker might

12

be actionable in state court, but it is not actionable here. Furthermore, it appears Spencer

13

already brought his claims in state court, which deprives this Court of jurisdiction to hear

14

them, under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. See Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1154–56 (9th

15

Cir. 2003).

16

Even if Spencer had shown why counsel could or should be appointed, he is not

17

bringing any claims over which the Court can exercise jurisdiction. The complaint is

18

DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to state a claim, and for failure to

19

invoke the Court’s jurisdiction. The motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED AS

20

MOOT.

21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 11, 2017

23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Spencer’s spelling of these parties’ names has been inconsistent, but the two state law cases appear to
involve the exact same people. In the 2009 state court proceeding, the defendant’s name is spelled both
as “Per Johnson” and “Pierce Johnson”.
2
17cv1798-LAB (JLB)