From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sandoval v. Keller

United States District Court, S.D. California
Jan 20, 2010
CIVIL CASE NO. 10CV111 DMS (BLM) (S.D. Cal. Jan. 20, 2010)

Opinion

CIVIL CASE NO. 10CV111 DMS (BLM).

January 20, 2010


ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS; DENYING AS MOOT REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL; DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE [Docs. 1-3]


Plaintiff Grace L. Sandoval, proceeding pro se, has filed a complaint (Doc. 1), along with a Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis ("IFP") (Doc. 2) and a Request for Appointment Counsel (Doc. 3). Based on the information provided by Plaintiff, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's IFP motion, solely for the purpose of the motions currently before the Court. The Court is obligated to review a complaint filed IFP sua sponte and must dismiss the action if it determines that the complaint is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim for relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). After careful review, the Court finds that Plaintiff's complaint is frivolous and void of any plausible claims for relief. Because "it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by amendment," the Court DISMISSES the complaint with prejudice. Franklin v. Murphy, 245 F.2d 1221, 1228 n. 9 (9th Cir. 1984). As such, the Court DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiff's Request for Appointment of Counsel.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Sandoval v. Keller

United States District Court, S.D. California
Jan 20, 2010
CIVIL CASE NO. 10CV111 DMS (BLM) (S.D. Cal. Jan. 20, 2010)
Case details for

Sandoval v. Keller

Case Details

Full title:GRACE L. SANDOVAL, Plaintiff, v. MARION KELLER, Defendant

Court:United States District Court, S.D. California

Date published: Jan 20, 2010

Citations

CIVIL CASE NO. 10CV111 DMS (BLM) (S.D. Cal. Jan. 20, 2010)