Moore v. State of CA
- 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 his complaint alleging a Second Amendment violation and entrapment. The court granted the motion to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissed the complaint with prejudice for failure to state a claim.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Granting Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis“Accordingly, the Court grants Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).” | agree with court The court found the plaintiff's affidavit sufficient to show inability to pay fees under Civil Local Rule 3.2(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). The plaintiff reported no income or cash and a single asset (a vehicle) valued at $15,000. While the vehicle's value is significant, the court's determination that this was sufficient to show inability to pay is a discretionary finding based on the specific local rule and affidavit provided. The decision follows the procedural requirements for IFP status. |
Dismissing Complaint with Prejudice for Failure to State a Claim“The Court therefore dismisses Plaintiff's Complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. Because “it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by amendment,” the Court dismisses complaint with prejudice.” | agree with court The court applied the mandatory screening standard of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). The complaint alleged that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) barred him from purchasing firearms, and that San Diego law enforcement aided the NSA and the State of Mississippi to cover up a 1979 Rose Bowl incident involving Terry Donahue. It also alleged a 2003 arrest for selling crack cocaine was an entrapment scheme by former Governor Pete Wilson to infringe on Second Amendment rights. The court found these allegations insufficient to state a claim. The allegations are factually incoherent (linking a 1979 Rose Bowl cover-up to a 2021 firearm purchase denial and a 2003 drug arrest) and fail to establish a causal link or legal basis for the claims against the State of California. Dismissing with prejudice is appropriate when the deficiencies are incurable, as the core factual allegations are implausible and do not support a constitutional or statutory claim under the cited authorities. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the statutory basis for IFP status and mandatory screening. It applies the correct standard for dismissing a complaint with prejudice under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) when the deficiencies are incurable. The factual allegations in the complaint are so incoherent and implausible (linking a 1979 Rose Bowl cover-up to a 2021 firearm purchase and a 2003 drug arrest) that they fail to state a claim under any plausible theory. The court's reliance on Franklin v. Murphy for the with-prejudice dismissal is appropriate given the nature of the allegations. The order is concise but sufficient for a sua sponte screening dismissal.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 SURF MOORE, Case No.: 21-cv-1114 DMS (WVG)
13 Plaintiff, ORDER (1) GRANTING 14 v. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 15 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND (2) DISMISSING COMPLAINT 16 Defendant. WITH PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM UPON WHICH 17 RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED 18 PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) 19 20 Plaintiff Surf Moore, a non-prisoner proceeding pro se, has submitted a Complaint 21 along with a request to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). 22 A. 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 $402.1 See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed despite a plaintiff’s failure to 26 27 1 In addition to the $350 statutory fee, civil litigants must pay an additional administrative 28 1 prepay the entire fee only if the plaintiff is granted leave to proceed IFP pursuant to 2 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 2007); 3 Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999); Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 4 1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 5 Here, Plaintiff’s affidavit indicates he has no income or cash. (ECF No. 2.) Plaintiff 6 reports a single asset: a motor vehicle valued at $15,000. (Id.) This Court finds Plaintiff’s 7 affidavit of assets is sufficient to show he is unable to pay the fees or post securities 8 required to maintain this action. See Civil Local Rule 3.2(a). Accordingly, the Court grants 9 Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 10 B. Sua Sponte Screening 11 Notwithstanding payment of any filing fee or portion thereof, a complaint filed by 12 any person proceeding IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) is subject to a mandatory and 13 sua sponte review and dismissal by the court to the extent it is frivolous, malicious, fails to 14 state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant 15 immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 16 (9th Cir. 2001) (“[T]he provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) are not limited to 17 prisoners.”); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126–27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 18 The Complaint in this case is not a model of clarity, but the Court construes 19 Plaintiff’s claims thusly. Plaintiff alleges he attempted to procure firearms at a pawn shop 20 in Jackson, Mississippi in May 2021, but was barred from doing so by the Bureau of 21 Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. (ECF No. 1 at 4.) Plaintiff further alleges 22 “[San Diego] Law Enforcement was aiding [the National Security Agency] with the State 23 of [Mississippi] to cover-up for [the 1979] Rose Bowl under Terry Donahue.” (Id. at 5.) 24 Plaintiff also alleges he was arrested for selling crack cocaine in 2003. (Id. at 6.) Plaintiff 25 alleges this arrest was part of an entrapment scheme implemented by former California 26 27 Misc. Fee Schedule, § 14 (eff. Dec. 1, 2020)). The additional $52 administrative fee does 28 1 || Governor Pete Wilson in order to infringe on his Second Amendment rights. (/d.) Based 2 these alleged facts, Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment and $5 million in punitive 3 ||damages. (Ud. at 7-10.) 4 Plaintiff cites the Second and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States 5 Constitution, along with 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985; 28 U.S.C. §§ 2202 and 1343; and 6 || 18 U.S.C. § 1491 as the basis for his claims. However, Plaintiff fails to allege sufficient 7 to sustain these claims. Plaintiff's Complaint is subject to sua sponte dismissal under 8 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)Gi). The Court therefore dismisses Plaintiff's Complaint for 9 || failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. Because “it is absolutely clear that 10 || the deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by amendment,” the Court dismisses 11 complaint with prejudice. Franklin vy. Murphy, 245 F.2d 1221, 1228 n. 9 (9th Cir. 12 || 1984). 13 CONCLUSION 14 For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed IFP is GRANTED and the 15 || Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state a claim. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 18 ||Dated: June 30, 2021 9 Yn. L4\ Hon. Dana M. Sabraw 20 United State Chief District Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28