Valentin Garcia Diaz v. RJD Donovan Correctional Facility, et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cathy Ann Bencivengo (author)
Analysis
The court considered a pro se prisoner's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) and his § 1983 complaint alleging that prison staff mocked him for claiming to be telepathic and used excessive force. The court denied the IFP motion for insufficient financial disclosure and dismissed the complaint as frivolous and failing to state a claim.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to Proceed IFP Denied“Accordingly, the Court DENIES his IFP motion.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the requirement that a plaintiff seeking IFP status must allege poverty with particularity. The order recites that the plaintiff failed to list cash, bank accounts, or expenses, and used an incomplete form. This is a sufficient basis to deny the motion under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). |
Complaint Dismissed“The Court finds Plaintiff's allegations to be frivolous and DISMISSES the complaint.” | agree with court The court dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) as frivolous and for failure to state a claim. The allegations that staff 'mocked' the plaintiff for claiming to be 'telepathic' do not state a constitutional violation (mockery alone is not a deprivation of rights). The excessive force allegation is conclusory ('grabbing him and carrying him back to his cell with no other details') and fails to allege that the force used was objectively unreasonable or that it was used maliciously and sadistically to cause harm. The dismissal is supported by the record recited in the order. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the statutory standards for IFP and dismissal. It applies the 'particularity' requirement from Escobedo to the plaintiff's incomplete financial affidavit. It applies the frivolous/failure to state a claim standard to the substantive allegations, correctly identifying that 'mockery' is not a constitutional violation and that the excessive force claim is too conclusory to survive. The reasoning is concise but legally sufficient for a pro se prisoner case.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 VALENTIN GARCIA DIAZ, Case No.: 3:25-cv-3765-CAB-JLB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 13 v. PROCEED IFP & DISMISSING COMPLAINT 14 RJD DONOVAN CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, et al., 15 [Doc. No. 2] Defendants. 16 17 On December 22, 2025, Plaintiff Valentin Garcia Diaz filed a complaint against 18 Defendants RJD Donovan Correctional Facility and Does 1–3 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 19 § 1983. [Doc. No. 1 at 3.] Plaintiff did not prepay the civil filing fees required by 28 20 U.S.C. § 1914(a) at the time of filing; instead, he filed a motion to proceed in forma 21 pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). [Doc. No. 2.] For the reasons below, 22 the Court DENIES the IFP motion and DISMISSES the complaint. 23 Generally, all parties instituting a civil action in this Court must pay a filing fee. See 24 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); CivLR 4.5(a). But under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), the Court may 25 authorize any suit’s commencement, prosecution, or defense without payment of fees if the 26 plaintiff submits an affidavit, including a statement of all his or her assets, showing he or 27 she is unable to pay filing fees or costs. “[A] plaintiff seeking IFP status must allege 28 1 || poverty with some particularity, definiteness and certainty.” Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 2 || F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted). Granting or denying 3 || leave to proceed IFP in civil cases is within the district court’s sound discretion. Venable 4 ||v. Meyers, 500 F.2d 1215, 1216 (9th Cir. 1974) (citations omitted). 5 The Court finds Plaintiff's IFP application is insufficient. He does not list any 6 ||money he has in cash or in any bank account, nor does he list any expenses. The form 7 || template he uses is missing the second page which requests additional information from 8 ||the applicant. Accordingly, the Court DENIES his IFP motion. 9 Even if his IFP motion was sufficient, the Court dismisses Plaintiff's case as it is 10 || frivolous and he fails to state a claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). From what can be 11 discerned, Plaintiff alleges that prison staff did not talk to him and mocked him after he 12 them he was “telepathic.” [Doc. No. | at 4.] He also alleges that someone used 13 excessive force in grabbing him and carrying him back to his cell with no other details. 14 || [/d.] The Court finds Plaintiff's allegations to be frivolous and DISMISSES the complaint. 15 It is SO ORDERED. 16 Dated: February 3, 2026 € 17 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 18 United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28