Opinion

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 TYLER GAMBLE COVARRUBIOS, Case No.: 3:26-cv-1143-JAH-MSB Plaintiff, 11 ORDER: v. 12 1. DENYING MOTION TO 13 SANTA ANA POLICE PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS DEPARTMENT et al., 14 Defendant. 2. DISMISSING ACTION 15 WITHOUT PREJUDICE 16 [ECF Nos. 1-2] 17 18 Before the Court is Plaintiff Tyler Gamble Covarrubios’ application to proceed 19 in forma pauperis (“IFP”), filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(a). See ECF No. 2 20 (“Application”). Proceeding pro se, Plaintiff’s action seeks damages against the Santa 21 Ana Police Department and the Arlington Police Department (collectively, 22 “Defendants”). See ECF No. 1 (“Complaint”). 23 After careful review of the filings, and for the reasons set forth below, the Court 24 DENIES Plaintiff’s Application and DISMISSES the action without prejudice. 25 // 26 // 27 // 1 DISCUSSION 2 I. Application to Proceed IFP 3 All parties instituting any civil action, suit, or proceeding in a district court of 4 the United States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must typically pay 5 $405 in statutory fees. 28 U.S.C. § 1914.1 However, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 6 1915(a)(1), if a plaintiff is granted leave to proceed IFP, a court may authorize a 7 plaintiff to proceed without first paying the statutory fees in full or in part. See Hymas 8 v. U.S. Dept. of the Int., 73 F.4th 763, 767 (9th Cir. 2023). 9 For a court to grant leave to proceed IFP, the plaintiff must submit “an affidavit 10 that includes a statement of all assets” showing their inability to pay the statutory fees. 11 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Although “an affidavit in support of an IFP application is 12 sufficient where it alleges that the affiant cannot pay the court costs and still afford the 13 necessities of life . . . a plaintiff seeking IFP status must allege poverty with ‘some 14 particularity, definiteness and certainty.’” Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 15 1234 (9th Cir. 2015) (citing United States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 940 (9th Cir. 16 1981)) (emphasis added). 17 Here, Plaintiff failed to provide an affidavit and complete statement of assets in 18 support of his Application. Although Plaintiff used the correct form2 to file his IFP 19 Application, Plaintiff failed to sign the “Affidavit in Support of Application.”3 Plaintiff 20 21 1 In addition to the $350 statutory filing fee, civil litigants must pay an additional 22 administrative fee of $55. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914; Judicial Conf. of the U.S., District 23 Court Misc. Fee Schedule, ¶ 14 (Dec. 1, 2023). The additional $55 administrative fee does not apply to IFP litigants. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). 24 2 Plaintiff filed the correct but incomplete form AO 239, Application to Proceed in 25 District Court without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Long Form). 3 The “Affidavit in Support of Application” reads as follows: 26 I am a plaintiff or petitioner in this case and declare that I am unable to 27 pay the costs of these proceedings and that I am entitled to the relief requested. I declare under penalty of perjury that the information below 1 did not otherwise provide an affidavit in support of his Application. See generally id. 2 Plaintiff also left most of the form blank despite the form’s clear instructions 3 requiring Plaintiff to complete all questions and not leave any blanks. App. at 1. For 4 example, rather than leaving blanks, the form directs Plaintiff to write “0,” “none,” or 5 “not applicable” to make clear to the Court that neither Plaintiff nor his or her spouse 6 has received any money from the corresponding source(s) during the past 12 months. 7 Id. Plaintiff alleges his total monthly income is $0 but fails to fill out any of the income 8 source rows. Id. at 1–2. Plaintiff also failed to provide other information required by 9 the affidavit form, including, inter alia, information regarding his two-year 10 employment history, cash on hand, bank accounts, other financial assets, a summary of 11 his estimated monthly family expenses, legal residence, contact phone number, age, 12 and years of schooling. Id. at 3–5. 13 Given Plaintiff’s failure to properly submit an affidavit and a completed 14 statement of assets showing his inability to pay the statutory fees, the Court finds the 15 Application lacks the “particularity, definiteness and certainty” necessary for the Court 16 to grant leave for Plaintiff to proceed IFP. See Escobedo, 787 F.3d at 1234. 17 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed IFP is DENIED without prejudice. 18 II. Sua Sponte Review Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) 19 A plaintiff who seeks leave to proceed IFP subjects their complaint to sua sponte 20 review and mandatory dismissal if the action: “(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to 21 state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a 22 defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 23 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires that all pleadings include “a 24 short and plain statement of [each] claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” 25 26 27 is true and understand that a false statement may result in a dismissal of my claims. 1 The function of this pleading requirement is to “give the defendant fair notice of what 2 the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 3 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). However, because “pleadings must be construed so as to do 4 justice,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e), “a document filed pro se is ‘to be liberally construed.’” 5 Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (internal citation omitted). Thus, “a pro se 6 complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than 7 formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Id. (internal citation and quotations omitted). 8 If the court finds a complaint fails to state a claim, the court “should grant leave 9 to amend, unless it determines that the pleading could not possibly be cured by the 10 allegation of other facts.” See Doe v. United States, 58 F.3d 494, 497 (9th Cir. 1995) 11 (internal citation and quotations omitted). 12 A. Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction 13 Federal district courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and may hear only cases 14 that federal law authorizes it to hear. See U.S. Constitution Article III, § 2, cl. 1. 15 Federal district courts have subject matter jurisdiction under three major categories. 16 See, e.g. Compl. at 3 (“Basis for Jurisdiction”). First, the Court may hear federal 17 question cases that arise under “the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 18 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Second, the Court may hear diversity of citizenship cases that 19 involve citizens of different States and an amount in controversy that exceeds $75,000. 20 See 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Finally, the Court may hear cases where the U.S. Government, 21 a federal agency, or a federal official is a defendant. See 28 U.S.C. § 1346. 22 “If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the 23 court must dismiss the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). Thus, under Rule 12(h)(3), a 24 Court may raise the question of subject matter jurisdiction at any time during the 25 pendency of an action. Id. 26 Here, Plaintiff fails to allege any facts showing that this Court has subject matter 27 jurisdiction over the matter. Specifically, Plaintiff fails to check the basis for 1 jurisdiction in Section II of the Complaint form and does not complete any of the 2 subsidiary fields. Compl. at 3–4. Although pleadings drafted by a pro se plaintiff are 3 construed liberally so as to do justice, such liberal construction does not compel a Court 4 to assume facts Plaintiff does not allege. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1) (requiring a 5 complaint to include “a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s 6 jurisdiction”). Absent such facts, the Court is unable to find that this Court has subject 7 matter jurisdiction to hear the matter.4 8 B. Failure to State a Claim 9 Even if Plaintiff could establish this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction over the 10 action, the Court has serious concerns as to whether the action would survive a sua 11 sponte review of the allegations in the Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). 12 Rule 12(b)(6) challenges the sufficiency of the complaint. Navarro v. Block, 13 250 F.3d 729, 732 (9th Cir. 2001). Although Rule 12(b)(6) does not require detailed 14 essential facts for a complaint to “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face,” a 15 plaintiff must plead sufficient facts that, if true, “raise a right to relief above the 16 speculative level.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 570 (2007); Ashcroft 17 v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (“[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of 18 action… do not suffice . . . [n]or do . . . ‘naked assertion[s]’ devoid of ‘further factual 19 enhancement.’”). 20 Here, the allegations in the Complaint are wholly lacking. For example, in 21 Section IV of the Complaint form (“Statement of Claim(s)”), Plaintiff is instructed to 22 “identify the law or right you claim was violated” for each cause of action. Compl. at 23 5–6. In response, Plaintiff writes “Mental[.]” Id. When asked to “name the 24 25 26 4 Plaintiff also left §§ I(B) and III blank, which ask for Defendants’ names, address, and 27 contact information, as well as the basis for venue. See Compl. at 2-3. Thus, the Court lacks sufficient factual details to evaluate personal jurisdiction or venue propriety at 1 defendant(s) involved” in Plaintiff’s first and only claim for relief, Plaintiff writes 2 “Damages.” Id. When asked for supporting facts, Plaintiff alleges that he was 3 “detained in Santa Ana and prints were under a different name [and] was reporting 4 same occurrences and they put [him] in [a] mental hospital.” Id. Accordingly, the 5 Court questions whether, absent amendment, the allegations in the Complaint are 6 sufficient to state a claim on which relief may be granted. 7 Ultimately, “whether the complaint states a cause of action on which relief could 8 be granted is a question of law and just as issues of fact it must be decided after and 9 not before the court has assumed jurisdiction over the controversy.” See Bell v. Hood, 10 327 U.S. 678, 682 (1946). Thus, absent a sufficient jurisdictional showing, the Court 11 declines to rule on the sufficiency of the Complaint. See Steel Co. v. Citizens for a 12 Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 101 (1998) (explaining that a court cannot “resolve contested 13 questions of law when its jurisdiction is in doubt”). 14 In light of the foregoing, the Court DISMISSES the action without prejudice for 15 lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 16 CONCLUSION 17 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 18 1. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED pursuant to 28 19 U.S.C. § 1915(e). 20 2. Plaintiff’s entire action is DISMISSED without prejudice. The Court GRANTS 21 Plaintiff forty-five (45) days from the date of this Order to file an amended 22 complaint which cures the deficiencies of the pleading described herein. 23 Plaintiff is cautioned, however, that should he choose to file an amended 24 complaint, it must be complete by itself, comply with the Federal Rules of Civil 25 Procedure, including Rule 8(a) and Rule 12(b)(6), and that any claims not 26 realleged will be considered waived. See CivLR 15.1. Absent good cause, a 27 failure to file an amended complaint within the allocated timeframe will result 1 in dismissal of this action without further order from this Court. 2 3. If Plaintiff files an amended complaint, Plaintiff has forty-five (45) days from 3 the date of this Order to pay the full filing fee or file a renewed, fully completed 4 application to proceed in forma pauperis which cures the deficiencies in 5 Application described herein. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 g || Dated: July 31, 2026 VU ? Se. 10 □ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28