Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 LaTawnya COWAN, Case No.: 25-cv-0342-AGS-JLB 4 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING AMENDED 5 v. COMPLAINT (ECF 5) AND DENYING MOTION TO APPOINT 6 CA DEPT. OF SOCIAL SERVICES, et al., COUNSEL (ECF 6) 7 Defendants.

9 Because plaintiff LaTawnya Cowan is proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court must 10 screen her amended complaint and dismiss it if, among other things, it “fails to state a 11 claim.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). “The standard for determining whether a plaintiff 12 has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is the 13 same as the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) standard for failure to state a claim.” 14 Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012). In other words, the complaint must 15 “contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible 16 on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (cleaned up). 17 Cowan seeks “$25 million” and other unspecified damages from several California 18 state and county agencies for allegedly refusing to provide her with “accom[m]odations.” 19 (ECF 5, at 2.) But her complaint includes only “labels and conclusions,” and none of her 20 allegations “raise [her] right to relief above the speculative level.” See Bell Atl. Corp. v. 21 Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). For example, she alleges that the defendants have 22 been “[r]efusing” her “public accom[m]odations” and preventing her ability to “have full 23 participation or equal access to” “services” such as “employment” and “housing,” in 24 addition to some child “custody” and “foster care” issues. (ECF 5, at 2.) As for her child- 25 custody allegations, those claims must be brought in state court, rather than federal court, 26 because federal courts do not have the “power to issue divorce, alimony, and child custody 27 decrees.” Elk Grove Unified Sch. Dist. v. Newdow, 542 U.S. 1, 12 (2004), abrogated on 28 other grounds by Lexmark Int’l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 572 U.S. 118 1 ||(2014). As for her other claims, they are doomed by the absence of facts in support of her 2 ||conclusory allegations. Which accommodations are at issue? Which agency precluded her 3 ||access? Did she properly request the accommodations? And if the requests were refused, 4 || what was the allegedly improper basis for refusal? Without allegations in the complaint 5 answer such questions, the Court is unable to discern which legal wrongs Cowan is 6 || alleging. So, the claims cannot survive screening, and her complaint is DISMISSED. But 7 Court will give her another opportunity to file an amended complaint by March 20, 8 2026. If she does not file one by then, the Court will dismiss this entire action. 9 Cowan also asks the Court to appoint counsel for her. The Court may do so for “an 10 indigent civil litigant,” but “only in ‘exceptional circumstances.’” Wilborn v. Escalderon, 11 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986); see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). But it appears she may 12 ||already have the assistance of an attorney for potentially similar or identical claims. 13 || According to her declaration, she currently has an attorney “[a]ppointed by San Diego 14 || county and [who is] getting paid to represent plaintiff’ in what seems to be a different and 15 || potentially related matter. (ECF 6, at 3.) The Court could not find a matter involving this 16 plaintiff in the public state-court search database. But in response to the form question 17 || asking “[w]hy” her “‘attorney was not employed to handle [this] claim,” Cowan asserts it’s 18 ||because he “refuses to file [a] motion for Unruh compliance.” (/d.) Regardless of the 19 || validity of this disagreement, the assistance of counsel in a potentially related matter seems 20 undercut any “exceptional” need for an appointed attorney in this case. After all, it is 21 ||Cowan’s burden to show exceptional circumstances. So, the appointment request is 22 ||DENIED without prejudice. Should Cowan choose to file an amended complaint, she 23 || may also file an updated attorney-appointment request by March 20, 2026. If so, she must 24 || specify whether or not her current attorney is representing her for the issues in this case. 25 Dated: February 11, 2026 27 Hon. Andrew G. Schopler 28 United States District Judge