Straughan Petrie v. Family Health Centers of San Diego
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Jinsook Ohta (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a pro se plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis and his complaint alleging ADA violations. The court granted the IFP motion, found the complaint stated a claim, and ordered the U.S. Marshal to serve the defendant.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to proceed in forma pauperis granted“GRANTS Plaintiff's motion to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).” | agree with court The court relied on the plaintiff's affidavit to determine he lacked financial resources, which is the correct procedural mechanism under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). |
Complaint survives screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)“The Court concludes that Plaintiff has satisfied the “low threshold” standard in stating his claim for relief under the ADA.” | agree with court The court applied the liberal construction standard for pro se litigants and the 'beyond doubt' standard for failure to state a claim, citing appropriate Ninth Circuit authority. |
Service of process ordered via U.S. Marshal“ORDERS the U.S. Marshal to serve a copy of Plaintiff's Complaint and summons upon Defendant as directed by Plaintiff on the completed Form 285” | agree with court The court correctly ordered service by the Marshal and advanced costs, consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3) for IFP plaintiffs. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly applies the statutory standard for IFP status and the Ninth Circuit's liberal construction standard for pro se complaints. It properly orders service by the Marshal with costs advanced by the government, which is the standard procedure for IFP cases in this district.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 STRAUGHAN PETRIE, Case No.: 26-cv-910-JO-BLM 10 Plaintiff, MINUTE ORDER GRANTING 11 v. MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND ORDERING 12 FAMILY HEALTH CENTERS OF SAN MARSHAL SERVICE DIEGO, 13 Defendant. 14 15 16 Plaintiff Straughan Petrie, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint against Defendant 17 Family Health Centers of San Diego, alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities 18 Act (“ADA”). Dkt. 1. Plaintiff also filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) 19 accompanied by an affidavit listing his income and assets. Dkt. 2. Upon reviewing 20 Plaintiff’s affidavit regarding his financial condition, the Court concludes that Plaintiff 21 lacks the financial resources to pay the filing fee and grants his IFP motion. Dkt. 2; see 28 22 U.S.C. § 1915; Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 2007). 23 Because the Court grants Plaintiff leave to proceed IFP, it screens his complaint 24 pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(B). The Court concludes that Plaintiff has satisfied the “low 25 threshold” standard in stating his claim for relief under the ADA. See Wilhelm v. Rotman, 26 680 F.3d at 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012) (pro se complaints are construed “liberally” and 27 may be dismissed for failure to state a claim only “if it appears beyond doubt that the 28 plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief”). 1 For the above reasons, the Court: 2 1. GRANTS Plaintiff's motion to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 3 [Dkt. 2] 4 2. DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to issue a summons as to □□□□□□□□□□□ 5 Complaint upon Defendant and to forward it to Plaintiff along with a blank 6 U.S. Marshal Form 285 for the named Defendant. The Clerk will also provide 7 Plaintiff with a certified copy of this Order, a certified copy of the Complaint, 8 and the summons (together, the “IFP Package”) so that he may serve 9 Defendant. Upon receipt of the IFP Package, Plaintiff must complete the 10 Form 285 as completely and accurately as possible, include an address where 11 Defendant may be found and/or subject to service pursuant to S.D. Cal. Civ. 12 LR 4.1c., and return it to the U.S. Marshal according to the instructions the 13 Clerk provides. 14 3. ORDERS the U.S. Marshal to serve a copy of Plaintiff's Complaint and 15 summons upon Defendant as directed by Plaintiff on the completed Form 285, 16 and to promptly file proof of service, or proof of all attempts at service unable 17 to be executed, with the Clerk of Court. See S.D. Cal. Civ. LR 5.2. All costs 18 of that service will be advanced by the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 19 1915(d); Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3). 20 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. __ 23 || Dated: March 12, 2026 (i?
24 Honorable Jinsook Ohta 5 United States District Judge 26 27 28