Opinion
CASE NO. 12-cv-611 - BEN (POR)
04-02-2012
PAMELA STICKLER, Plaintiff, v. RICHARD STEWART, Defendant.
ORDER:
(1) GRANTING REQUEST TO
PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS,
[Doc. No. 2];
(2) SUA SPONTE DISMISSING
COMPLAINT; and
(3) DENYING AS MOOT MOTION TO
APPOINT COUNSEL, [Doc. No. 3].
Plaintiff Pamela Strickler, proceeding pro se, has filed a complaint seeking recovery of "legal papers" and a "1998 Toyota Tacoma." [Doc. No. 1.] Plaintiff has not paid the $350 civil filing fee required to commence this action, but has filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. [Doc. No. 2.] Plaintiff also filed a motion to appoint counsel. [Doc. No. 3.] For the reasons set forth below, the Court hereby GRANTS the motion to proceed informa pauperis, sua sponte screens and DISMISSES the complaint, and DENIES AS MOOT the motion to appoint counsel.
DISCUSSION
I. Motion to proceed in forma pauperis
Parties instituting any civil action in a district court of the United States, except an application for a writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of $350. 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 in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). Having reviewed Plaintiff's declaration in support of her motion to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court finds it sufficient to show that she is unable to pay the fees or post securities required to maintain this action. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). II. Sua sponte screening
An in forma pauperis complaint is subject to mandatory screening. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), notwithstanding any filing fee, the Court must dismiss any complaint if at any time the Court determines that it is "frivolous or malicious," "fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted," or "seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief." The sua sponte screening is mandatory. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc); see also Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (per curiam) ("[T]he provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) are not limited to prisoners." (citation omitted)).
In this case, Plaintiff's one-paragraph complaint fails to state any constitutional or statutory ground for relief, nor does it allege any basis for this Court's jurisdiction. Accordingly, the complaint is hereby DISMISSED because it fails to allege sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a plausible claim to relief. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009); see also Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order) ("The language of § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) parallels the language of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).").
CONCLUSION
Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. Plaintiff s complaint is hereby DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND for failure to state a claim. If Plaintiff wishes to amend her complaint, she should file the amended complaint no later than April 23, 2012. In light of the dismissal, Plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel is DENIED AS MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
_________________________
Honorable Roger T. Benitez
United States District Judge