Bullock v. Fallbrook Union School District
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Dana M. Sabraw (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a pro se complaint alleging discrimination by a school district and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. The court granted the motion to proceed IFP and dismissed the complaint without prejudice for failure to state a claim.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Plaintiffs' Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis is granted.“Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Motion to Proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).” | agree with court The order recites that the plaintiffs submitted an affidavit of assets sufficient to show inability to pay, which satisfies the statutory requirement for IFP status under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). |
The Complaint is dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP is GRANTED and the Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to state claim.” | agree with court The court applied the mandatory screening provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). The order states that the plaintiff failed to specify a legal basis for the alleged discrimination. Under the standard for failure to state a claim, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. By failing to identify the specific statute or constitutional provision violated (e.g., Title VI, Title IX, or the Equal Protection Clause), the complaint lacks the necessary legal foundation to survive screening. Dismissal without prejudice is appropriate to allow the plaintiff to amend the complaint to include the missing legal basis. |
Plaintiffs' request for appointment of counsel is denied.“In light of this ruling, Plaintiffs request for appointment of counsel is denied.” | agree with court The order notes this denial in a footnote. While the reasoning is brief, it is consistent with the general rule that there is no right to appointed counsel in civil cases, and the dismissal of the complaint renders the request moot or unnecessary at this stage. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the statutory basis for IFP screening and applies the appropriate standard for failure to state a claim. It relies on binding Ninth Circuit precedent to establish that non-prisoner IFP plaintiffs are subject to mandatory screening. The reasoning that the complaint fails because it does not specify a legal basis for the discrimination claim is legally sound; a complaint must plead facts that, when viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, state a claim for relief. Without identifying the specific law violated, the complaint is legally insufficient.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LEVITA A. WALKER; MALIK J. Case No.: 19cv1162-DMS-NLS BULLOCK, 12 ORDER (1) GRANTING Plaintiffs, 13 PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO v. PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 14 AND (2) DISMISSING COMPLAINT FALLBROOK UNION SCHOOL 15 WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR DISTRICT, FAILING TO STATE A CLAIM 16 Defendant. UPON WHICH RELIEF CAN BE 17 GRANTED PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) 18 19 20 Plaintiffs, non-prisoners proceeding pro se, have submitted a Complaint along with 21 a request to proceed In Forma Pauperis. 22 Motion to Proceed IFP 23 All parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in a district court of the 24 United States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of 25 $400. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed despite a plaintiff’s failure to 26 prepay the entire fee only if the plaintiff is granted leave to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 27 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). This Court 28 finds Plaintiffs’ affidavit of assets is sufficient to show they are unable to pay the fees or 1 post securities required to maintain this action. See Civil Local Rule 3.2(d). Accordingly, 2 the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Motion to Proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 3 Sua Sponte Screening per 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) 4 Notwithstanding payment of any filing fee or portion thereof, a complaint filed by 5 any person proceeding IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) is subject to a mandatory and 6 sua sponte review and dismissal by the court to the extent it is frivolous, malicious, fails to 7 state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant 8 immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 9 (9th Cir. 2001) (“[T]he provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) are not limited to 10 prisoners.”); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). Prior to 11 its amendment by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, the former 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) 12 permitted sua sponte dismissal of only frivolous and malicious claims. Id. at 1130. The 13 newly enacted 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), however, mandates that the court reviewing a 14 complaint filed pursuant to the IFP provisions of section 1915 make and rule on its own 15 motion to dismiss before directing that the complaint be served by the U.S. Marshal 16 pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(2). Lopez, 203 F.3d 1127 (“[S]ection 1915(e) not only 17 permits, but requires a district court to dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint that fails to 18 state a claim.”); see also Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (noting 19 the “the language of § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) parallels the language of Federal Rule of Civil 20 Procedure 12(b)(6)”). 21 Here, Plaintiff Levita Walker alleges her son, Plaintiff Malik Bullock, suffers from 22 stress caused by Defendant Fallbrook Union School District. (Compl. at 2). Plaintiff 23 alleges Defendant prevented her son from attending its school because of his age. (Id.). 24 Plaintiff alleges she was then forced to take her son to a school in Oceanside. (Id.). 25 Plaintiff alleges Defendant’s actions constitute discrimination. (Id. at 3). Plaintiff, 26 however, fails to specify a legal basis for her claim. In the absence of that information, 27 Plaintiff’s complaint is subject to sua sponte dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 28 1 || Conclusion and Order 2 For these reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed 3 || IFP is GRANTED and the Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to state 4 claim.! 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 7 Dated: January 28, 2020 g ins ym. 44) Hon. Dana M. Sabraw 9 United States District Judge 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 0 0 0—CO 9g ||' In light of this ruling, Plaintiffs request for appointment of counsel is denied.