Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 13 VICTORIA LEIGH HAINES-WILSON, Case No.: 3:26-cv-03253-CAB-DEB 14 Plaintiff, ORDER: 15 v. (1) GRANTING MOTION TO 16 CAMP PENDLETON DEERS and I.D. PROCEED IFP, [Doc. No. 2]; and (Mainside), et al., 17 Defendants. (2) DISMISSING COMPLAINT. 18 20 21 22 Before the Court is Plaintiff Victoria Leigh Haines-Wilson’s motion for leave to 23 proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). [Doc. No. 2.] Plaintiff filed her IFP motion in 24 connection with a complaint against “Camp Pendleton DEERS and I.D. (Mainside),” 25 “NAVY DEERS I.D. Center (Corporate Office),” “F.B.I. (San Diego Field Office),” and 26 “VA Resource Center” (together, “Defendants”). [Doc. No. 1 (“Complaint” or “Compl.”) 27 at 2 .] The Complaint cites U.S.C. Title 10 and 18 U.S.C. §§ 1030, 2511, 2512, 2701, as 28 well as the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. 1 [Complaint at 3.] For the reasons discussed below, the Court GRANTS the motion to 2 proceed IFP and DISMISSES the Complaint without prejudice. 3 I. REQUEST TO PROCEED IFP 4 All parties instituting any civil action, suit, or proceeding in a district court of the 5 United States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of 6 $405.1 See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). A party may initiate a civil action without prepaying the 7 required filing fee if the Court grants leave to proceed IFP based on indigency. 28 U.S.C. 8 § 1915(a); Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 2007). To satisfy the 9 requirements of § 1915(a), “an affidavit [of poverty] is sufficient which states that one 10 cannot because of his poverty pay or give security for the costs . . . and still be able to 11 provide himself and [his] dependents with the necessities of life.” Adkins v. E. I. DuPont 12 de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also 13 Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1229 (9th Cir. 2015). 14 Plaintiff has provided the Court with a sufficiently detailed application as required 15 by § 1915(a). [Doc. No. 2.] Plaintiff has shown an inability to prepay fees and costs or to 16 give security for them. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s IFP motion under 28 17 U.S.C. § 1915(a) and proceeds to screen the Complaint. 18 II. SCREENING PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) 19 The Court still must screen the Complaint and sua sponte dismiss it to the extent that 20 it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks damages from defendants who are 21 immune. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126–27 (9th Cir. 22 2000) (en banc). Section 1915(e)(2)(B) is not limited to prisoners; instead, it applies to all 23 cases in which the plaintiff proceeds IFP. See Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th 24 Cir. 2001). 25 26 27 1 Civil litigants must pay an administrative fee of $55 in addition to the $350 filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) (Judicial Conference Schedule of Fees, District Court Misc. Fee Schedule, § 14 (eff. Dec. 1, 28 1 Rule 12(b)(6) requires that a complaint “contain sufficient factual matter, accepted 2 as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 3 662, 678 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). While detailed factual allegations are 4 not required, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 5 conclusory statements, do not suffice” to state a claim. Id. “[U]nadorned, the-defendant- 6 unlawfully-harmed-me accusation[s]” fall short of meeting this plausibility standard. Id. 7 The Court considers Plaintiff’s position as a pro se litigant at the pleading stage and 8 construes the Complaint liberally. See Byrd v. Phoenix Police Dep’t, 885 F.3d 639, 642 9 (9th Cir. 2018). 10 Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure further establishes that a 11 Complaint must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader 12 is entitled to relief[.]” However, “[i]t is not the job of the district courts to make sense of 13 the pleading, to supply facts to support the claim, or to imagine the claims that might fit 14 the facts.” Gibson v. City of Portland, 165 F.4th 1265, 1289 (9th Cir. 2026). Accordingly, 15 courts retain discretion to reject or dismiss shotgun pleadings, including those which fail 16 to satisfy Rule 8(a)(2). Id. at 1289–90. The recognized categories of shotgun pleading 17 include a defective complaint which: (1) merely adopts and incorporates the allegations of 18 all preceding counts; (2) relies on vague or conclusory facts not obviously connected to a 19 cause of action; (3) fails to differentiate claims into separate counts; or (4) asserts multiple 20 claims against multiple defendants without specifying which defendant each claim is 21 brought against. Id. at 1288. 22 Plaintiff has failed to state a claim under FRCP Rule 12(b)(6) and FRCP Rule 23 8(a)(2). It appears that Plaintiff brings this lawsuit to recoup benefits that Defendants 24 allegedly owe her. [Compl. at 4; Doc. No. 1-1.] Although Plaintiff cites U.S.C. Title 10, 25 18 U.S.C. §§ 1030, 2511, 2512, 2701, as well as the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth 26 Amendments to the United States Constitution as support for her claims, the Complaint 27 does not intelligibly assert any claims, the particularized facts giving rise to those claims, 28 or the Defendants against whom each claim is lodged. As such, the Court cannot | |}meaningfully assess Plaintiff's Complaint and DISMISSES the Complaint as a shotgun 2 ||pleading. See Gibson, 165 F.4th at 1288. The Court encourages Plaintiff to connect her 3 claims against each Defendant with particularized facts. 4 Hit. CONCLUSION 5 Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to proceed IFP is GRANTED and her Complaint is 6 || DISMISSED with leave to amend. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint by 7 ||September 28, 2026. Failure to file an amended complaint by September 28, 2026 will 8 result in dismissal of the case. If Plaintiff files an amended complaint, it must be complete 9 || by itself and must not refer in any manner to the initial Complaint. 10 Itis SO ORDERED. 11 Dated: August 28, 2026 (if 12 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 13 United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28