Alonzo GIBSON Sr. v. SAN DIEGO COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Andrew G. Schopler (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a pro se plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis and his complaint challenging sex offender registration requirements. The court denied the motion to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissed the complaint with leave to amend, requiring the plaintiff to pay fees or file a new IFP petition and an amended complaint by August 31, 2026.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to proceed in forma pauperis denied“The motion to proceed IFP must therefore be denied.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard that an applicant must verify poverty. The plaintiff left the majority of the IFP application blank, failing to provide required information regarding assets and income details beyond a general statement of unemployment. Denial is appropriate when an applicant is unable or unwilling to verify poverty. |
Complaint dismissed with leave to amend“The complaint must thus be dismissed.” | agree with court The court applied the plausibility standard from Iqbal and Twombly. The complaint failed to state a claim because it lacked essential factual details necessary to evaluate an ex post facto challenge, such as the specific registration condition, the jurisdiction (federal vs. state), and the date of the underlying conviction. Without these facts, the court could not determine if the law had changed after the offense was committed, which is the core of an ex post facto inquiry. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the legal standards for IFP applications and complaint screening. It accurately applies the requirement for IFP applicants to verify poverty and the plausibility standard for complaints. The court correctly identifies the specific factual deficiencies in the plaintiff's ex post facto claim (lack of details on the specific law, jurisdiction, and timing of the offense) that prevent it from being plausible. The reasoning is complete and supported by the cited authorities.
Opinion
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 Alonzo GIBSON Sr., Case No.: 26-cv-3888-AGS-DDL 4 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 5 v. (ECF 1) 6 SAN DIEGO COUNTY SHERIFF’S 7 DEPARTMENT, 8 Defendants. 9 10 Plaintiff Alonzo Gibson, Sr., proceeding without an attorney, seeks to waive the 11 filing fee for his lawsuit against the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department. But he has 12 not justified waiving that fee, and his complaint does not survive the mandatory screening. 13 Thus, his motion is denied and his complaint dismissed, both with leave to refile. 14 FILING FEES 15 Parties instituting a civil action in a federal district court must typically pay filing 16 fees of $405. 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) ($350 filing fee); District Court Misc. Fee Schedule, 17 § 14 (effective Dec. 1, 2023) ($55 administrative fee). But if granted the right to proceed 18 in forma pauperis (“IFP”), a plaintiff can proceed without prepaying those fees. Rodriguez 19 v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). 20 Gibson’s IFP application, though, is woefully incomplete. (See generally ECF 1.) In 21 it, he states that he has no income and that he’s “unemployed.” (Id. at 1–2, 5.) But he’s left 22 the rest of the application blank. He has not, for instance, filled in any of the lines 23 concerning assets, cash, bank accounts, or any other requested information. (See generally 24 id.) Even though plaintiff “need not be completely destitute to proceed IFP,” see Blount v. 25 Saul, No. 21-cv-0679-BLM, 2021 WL 1561453, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 21, 2021), a court 26 should deny IFP status when applicants are “unable, or unwilling, to verify their poverty,” 27 United States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 940 (9th Cir. 1981). The motion to proceed IFP 28 must therefore be denied. Given Gibson’s unrepresented status, however, the Court grants 1 him leave to file an updated IFP petition. 2 SCREENING 3 When an individual moves to proceed IFP, the statute also “requires a district court” 4 to screen and dismiss a complaint “that fails to state a claim.” Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 5 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)). Federal Rules of Civil 6 Procedure 8 and 12(b)(6) require a complaint to “contain sufficient factual matter, accepted 7 as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 8 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). 9 In his complaint, Gibson alleges that the “ex post facto” clause of “Article 1, Section 10 9 of the U.S. Constitution” prohibits his “Sex Offenders Registration” requirement and that 11 the Sheriff’s Department is committing “an act of treason” in upholding this purportedly 12 “repugnant and unenforceable” obligation. (ECF 2, at 5.) Beyond that, though, his 13 complaint is devoid of any details. (See generally ECF 2.) For instance, he doesn’t explain 14 what sex-offender-registration condition he’s challenging—including whether it’s a federal 15 or state requirement—nor does he explain when he was convicted of whatever crime 16 triggered that requirement. “The key ex post facto inquiry is the actual state of the law at 17 the time the defendant perpetrated the offense.” Watson v. Estelle, 886 F.2d 1093, 1096 18 (9th Cir. 1989). Without those crucial factual details, the complaint does not state a claim 19 for relief that is plausible on its face. The complaint must thus be dismissed. 20 CONCLUSION 21 Thus, the Court orders as follows: 22 1. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED. 23 2. Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend. 24 25 26 27 28 1 3. By August 31, 2026, plaintiff must pay the full filing fee or file an updated IFP 2 ||petition. By that same date, he must also file an amended complaint addressing the 3 || deficiencies identified above. Failure to do so will result in a final dismissal. 4 ||Dated: July 14, 2026 6 Hon. rew G. Schopler , United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28