Freeman v. City of San Diego
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Dana M. Sabraw (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a pro se plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis, a motion to seal, a motion for leave to file electronically, and the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). The court granted the IFP motion and the motion for leave to file electronically, denied the motion to seal, found the complaint sufficient to survive screening, and directed the U.S. Marshal to effect service.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis granted“Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).” | agree with court The court applied the correct statutory standard for IFP status (inability to pay) and cited the appropriate local rule and Ninth Circuit authority regarding the requirement to pay fees or proceed IFP. The finding that the affidavit was sufficient is supported by the record recited in the order. |
Motion to Seal denied“That request is denied. See Marin v. Viernes, United States District Court for the Southern District of California, Case No. 23cv2118 DMS (MMP), ECF No. 3 (denying motion to seal IFP” | agree with court The court denied the motion to seal the IFP affidavit. While the order cites a specific district court case (Marin v. Viernes) rather than a published appellate authority, the general principle that IFP affidavits are public records unless a specific showing of harm is made is standard. The order is brief but the result is consistent with general practice. |
Motion for Leave to File Electronically granted“As such, Plaintiff's Motion is GRANTED.” | agree with court The court applied the local administrative policy requiring pro se litigants to demonstrate the means to file electronically. The plaintiff stated he had the necessary equipment and software, satisfying the stated requirement. |
Complaint survives sua sponte screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)“Here, the Court has conducted its initial review of Plaintiff’s Complaint, and finds it sufficient to survive the screening provisions of § 1915(e)(2).” | agree with court The court conducted the mandatory screening required for IFP cases. It cited the correct statute and Ninth Circuit precedent (Calhoun v. Stahl) confirming the statute applies to non-prisoners. The court found the complaint sufficient to state a claim. Without the full text of the complaint, the specific legal sufficiency cannot be independently verified, but the procedural application of the screening standard is correct. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the statutory requirements for IFP status and the mandatory screening process under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. It cites appropriate Ninth Circuit authority for the applicability of screening to non-prisoners. The denial of the motion to seal relies on a specific district court order rather than a broader published authority, but the result is standard. The grant of electronic filing leave follows local administrative rules. The reasoning is sufficient for these procedural determinations.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSEPH FREEMAN, Case No.: 25cv0104 DMS (MSB) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER (1) GRANTING MOTION 13 vs. TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS, (2) DENYING 14 CITY OF SAN DIEGO, ALBERTO MOTION TO SEAL, (3) ZARAGOZA, DANIEL NEIFER, 15 GRANTING MOTION FOR GARRETT EDWARD SHEEHAN, LEAVE TO FILE 16 Defendants. ELECTRONICALLY, AND (4) 17 DIRECTING U.S. MARSHAL TO EFFECT SERVICE OF SUMMONS 18 AND COMPLAINT PURSUANT 19 TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) AND FED. R. CIV. P. 4(c)(3), (3) 20 21 22 Plaintiff Joseph Freeman, a nonprisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a Complaint 23 alleging a violation of his federal constitutional rights. Plaintiff did not pay the $405 civil 24 filing fee required to commence this action, but rather, filed a motion to proceed in forma 25 pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Plaintiff has also filed a motion to seal 26 his IFP motion and a motion for leave to file electronically. 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 Motion to Proceed IFP 2 All parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in a district court of the 3 United States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of 4 $400. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed despite a plaintiff’s failure to 5 prepay the entire fee only if the plaintiff is granted leave to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 6 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). This Court 7 finds Plaintiff’s affidavit of assets is sufficient to show he is unable to pay the fees or post 8 securities required to maintain this action. See Civil Local Rule 3.2(d). Accordingly, the 9 Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 10 Sua Sponte Screening per 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) 11 Any complaint filed pursuant to the IFP provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) is subject 12 to a mandatory and sua sponte review and dismissal by the Court, if it finds the Complaint 13 is “frivolous, malicious, failing to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or 14 seeking monetary relief from a defendant immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 15 1915(e)(2)(B); Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (“[T]he provisions of 16 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) are not limited to prisoners.”). Here, the Court has conducted 17 its initial review of Plaintiff’s Complaint, and finds it sufficient to survive the screening 18 provisions of § 1915(e)(2). 19 Motion for Leave to File Electronically 20 Finally, Plaintiff has filed a motion for leave to file documents electronically. Under 21 this Court’s Electronic Case Filing Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, a pro 22 se litigant “seeking leave to electronically file documents must file a motion and 23 demonstrate the means to do so properly by stating their equipment and software 24 25 26 1 After filing his Complaint, Plaintiff filed a request to seal his IFP motion. That request is 27 denied. See Marin v. Viernes, United States District Court for the Southern District of California, Case No. 23cv2118 DMS (MMP), ECF No. 3 (denying motion to seal IFP 28 1 capabilities in addition to agreeing to follow all the rules and policies in the □□□□□□□ 2 || Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual.” Plaintiff has stated he has the proper 3 equipment and software capabilities. As such, Plaintiff's Motion is GRANTED. 4 In accordance with the rulings above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 5 1. The United States Marshal shall serve a copy of the Complaint, summons and 6 Order upon Defendants as directed by Plaintiff on U.S. Marshal Form 285. All costs 7 || of service shall be advanced by the United States. 8 2. Plaintiff shall serve upon Defendant or, if appearance has been entered by 9 ||counsel, upon Defendant’s counsel, a copy of every further pleading or other document 10 || submitted for consideration of the Court. Plaintiff shall include with the original paper to 11 filed with the Clerk of the Court a certificate stating the manner in which a true and 12 || correct copy of any document was served on the Defendant or counsel for Defendant and 13 ||the date of service. Any paper received by a district judge or magistrate judge which has 14 |/not been filed with the Clerk or which fails to include a Certificate of Service will be 15 || disregarded. 16 Dated: April 28, 2025 17 2 nnn Salo Ig Hon. Dana M. Sabraw United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28