Opinion
CASE NO. 12cv909-LAB (MDD)
04-19-2012
PAMELA STICKLER, Plaintiff, v. SHARON1 PROAK, Defendant.
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
On April 13, 2012, Plaintiff filed her complaint in this action, along with a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP), and a motion for appointment of counsel.
All parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in a United States District Court must pay a filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed despite a plaintiff's failure to prepay the entire fee only if the plaintiff is granted leave to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999).
Because the IFP motion is incomplete, the Court cannot determine that Stickler lacks the resources to pay the filing fee. The motion is therefore DENIED.
Assuming Stickler filed a new IFP motion, the Court would be required to screen it, and to dismiss it to the extent it is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks monetary relief from an immune defendant. See § 1915(e)(2)(B); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000).
The body of the complaint, in its entirety, reads:
I believe Sharon Proak may be part of threatening me to call police, when at the Chabad, he had said I have someone here and I just want to arrest it. Specific relief requesting to restrain Sharon Proak.[sic.] This not only does not state a claim, but the Court has no jurisdiction over any claim against Defendant that might arise from the alleged facts.
This action is therefore DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE BUT WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. The motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED AS MOOT and the Clerk is directed to close the docket.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
________________________
HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS
United States District Judge