Rodriguez v. Scripps Health
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Dana M. Sabraw (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a pro se plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis and her complaint seeking monetary damages under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) for the denial and destruction of medical records. The court granted the motion to proceed IFP but dismissed the complaint without prejudice for failing to state a claim because the plaintiff sought monetary relief in excess of the statutory cap for FOIA claims.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (IFP) granted“Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).” | agree with court The order recites that the plaintiff's affidavit of assets is sufficient to show an inability to pay fees or post securities, which satisfies the statutory requirement for IFP status under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). |
Complaint dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP is GRANTED and the Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to state a claim.” | agree with court The court applied the mandatory screening provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). The plaintiff sought $25,000 in damages under FOIA. The order cites 5 U.S.C. § 552a(g)(4)(A) to assert that FOIA limits actual damages to less than $1,000. Because the requested relief exceeds this statutory cap, the court determined the complaint seeks improper relief and fails to state a claim. The dismissal is without prejudice, allowing the plaintiff to amend the complaint to seek relief within the statutory limits. |
Request for appointment of counsel denied“In light of this ruling, Plaintiffs request for appointment of counsel is denied.” | agree with court The court denied the request for appointment of counsel as a consequence of dismissing the complaint. Since the case is being dismissed, there is no pending matter for which counsel would be appointed. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the mandatory screening requirement for IFP complaints under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). It correctly applies the statutory cap on damages under FOIA (5 U.S.C. § 552a(g)(4)(A)) to determine that the plaintiff's request for $25,000 in damages constitutes improper relief, thereby failing to state a claim. The dismissal without prejudice is appropriate to allow for amendment. The reasoning is direct and supported by the cited authorities.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARCELLA RODRIGUEZ, Case No.: 19cv2459-DMS-BLM 12 Plaintiff, ORDER (1) GRANTING 13 v. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 14 SCRIPPS HEALTH, AND (2) DISMISSING COMPLAINT 15 Defendant. WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR FAILING TO STATE A CLAIM 16 UPON WHICH RELIEF CAN BE 17 GRANTED PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) 18 19 20 Plaintiff, a non-prisoner proceeding pro se, has submitted a Complaint along with a 21 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 Plaintiff’s affidavit of assets is sufficient to show he is unable to pay the fees or post 1 securities required to maintain this action. See Civil Local Rule 3.2(d). Accordingly, the 2 Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s 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 filed suit under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), seeking 22 “reimbursement for losses that incurred as a result of being denied [her] civil rights.” 23 (Compl. at 3). Plaintiff alleges the Chula Vista Hospital denied her access to her medical 24 records and then destroyed the records. (Id. at 2). Plaintiff does not seek the release of her 25 medical records; instead, she seeks $25,000 in monetary damages. (Id. at 3). FOIA limits 26 “actual damages sustained by the individual as a result of the refusal or failure [to provide 27 the documents] to less than $1,000. 5 U.S.C. § 552a(g)(4)(A). Therefore, Plaintiff seeks 28 1 ||improper relief under FOIA. Plaintiff’s complaint is subject to sua sponte dismissal under 2 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (i). 3 || Conclusion and Order 4 For these reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed 5 || IFP is GRANTED and the Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to state 6 |/aclaim.' 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 9 || Dated: February 3, 2020 J 10 rn yn. Hon. Dana M. Sabraw 11 United States District Judge 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.