1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 RICHARD TURFLEY, Case No.: 19-cv-1585-CAB-BGS

10 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION 11 v. FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND SUA 12 CITY OF SAN DIEGO et al., SPONTE DISMISSING COMPLAINT 13 Defendants. 14 15 16 17 On August 23, 2019, Plaintiff, a non-prisoner, filed a complaint that names the City 18 of San Diego (the “City”), the San Diego Police Department (the “SDPD”), the County of 19 San Diego (the “County”), and the “San Diego County Prosecutor” (the “Prosecutor”) as 20 defendants. [Doc. No. 1.] Plaintiff did not pay the requisite filings fees and instead filed 21 an application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). [Doc. No. 2.] As discussed 22 below, Plaintiff’s application to proceed IFP is granted, and the complaint is dismissed 23 pursuant to the sua sponte screening required by

(e)(2)(B). 24 I. Application to Proceed IFP 25 Plaintiff moves to proceed IFP under

. All parties instituting any 26 civil action, suit, or proceeding in a district court of the United States, except an application 27 for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of $400. See

(a); CivLR 28 4.5. An action may proceed despite a plaintiff’s failure to prepay the entire fee only if the 1 plaintiff is granted leave to proceed IFP under

(a). See Rodriguez v. Cook, 2

(9th Cir. 1999). All actions sought to be filed IFP under § 1915 must 3 be accompanied by an affidavit, signed by the applicant under penalty of perjury, that 4 includes a statement of all assets which shows inability to pay initial fees or give security. 5 CivLR 3.2.a. Here, Plaintiff’s application demonstrates that Plaintiff lacks the financial 6 resources to pay the filing fees and still afford the necessities of life. See Escobedo v. 7 Applebees,

(9th Cir. 2015); see also

(a). 8 II. Sua Sponte Screening 9 Notwithstanding the foregoing, a complaint filed by any person seeking to proceed 10 IFP pursuant to

(a) is subject to mandatory and sua sponte review and 11 dismissal should the Court determine, inter alia, it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state 12 a claim upon which relief may be granted.

(e)(2)(B); Calhoun v. Stahl, 13

(9th Cir. 2001) (“[T]he provisions of

(e)(2)(B) are not 14 limited to prisoners.”). Congress enacted this safeguard because “a litigant whose filing 15 fees and court costs are assumed by the public, unlike a paying litigant, lacks an economic 16 incentive to refrain from filing frivolous, malicious, or repetitive lawsuits.” Denton v. 17 Hernandez,

(1992) (quoting Neitzke v. Williams,

, 324 18 (1989)). 19 “The standard for determining whether a plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon 20 which relief can be granted under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is the same as the Federal Rule of 21 Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) standard for failure to state a claim.” Watison v. Carter,

(9th Cir. 2012). To survive a motion to dismiss, the complaint must contain “a 23 short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. 24 R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). “[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, 25 to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

, 26 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,

(2007)). Detailed 27 factual allegations are not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of 28 action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.”

1 The complaint here is handwritten on a pre-printed form. In the section with the 2 heading, “Statement of Claim”, the complaint makes a one sentence allegation against each 3 defendant. As for the City, the complaint alleges that it did not stop systemic racism on 4 the police force and that allowing the police department to investigate itself is a conflict of 5 interest. As for the SDPD, the complaint alleges that the SDPD has a conflict of interest 6 in investigating its own crime (the complaint does not identify the alleged crime in 7 question), and that it does not train officers in race relations and avoiding excessive force. 8 As for the County, the complaint alleges that the justice system is “full of systemic racism” 9 and that the County did not end the racism by preventing police from filing charges against 10 people the police have beaten. Finally, as for the Prosecutor, the complaint alleges that it 11 files charges against people the police have beaten and not against the police officers. 12 In the section of the complaint form with the heading “Relief You Request,” the 13 complaint states: 14 Order the City and County to cease and desist funding the Prosecutor and the police department until they resolve the conflict of interest and take steps to 15 end systemic racism and police brutality. Dismiss the charges against me and 16 pay me for a great deal of pain and suffering. Place an injunction against all City, County, State, and local courts in the Court’s jurisdiction to stop filing 17 unjust charges against people after the police have beaten them up if the 18 charges dismissed. I want to be able to sophenia [sic] my audiologist and the doctor who repaired my eye, emergency room records when I was passing out 19 in pain, police officers employment records, jail records and witnesses to 20 show that my girlfriend who called 911 and enrage police causing them to beat me has multiple personalities. My public defender is not sopheniaing 21 [sic] people and records I need for my defence. 22 23 In short, the allegations in the “statement of claim” section of the complaint do not 24 state a plausible claim for relief for Plaintiff. The complaint does not allege any facts about 25 actions by any of the defendants against Plaintiff personally. Absent factual allegations 26 about any injuries suffered by Plaintiff as a result of alleged wrongful actions by 27 Defendants, Plaintiff does not have standing to challenge alleged systemic racism by 28 Defendants. 1 Further, the Court cannot provide most of the relief requested by Plaintiff. Plaintiff 2 ||does not have standing to seek general injunctive relief against the City and County 3 concerning the funding of the Prosecutor and SDPD. This Court cannot issue a general 4 || injunction against state courts concerning the filing of criminal charges. Finally, this Court 5 ||cannot order a state court to dismiss pending criminal charges against Plaintiff, order a 6 ||state court to allow discovery in a pending criminal case, or order Plaintiff’s public 7 || defender to take such discovery. 8 III. Disposition 9 Plaintiffs allegations are conclusory and fail to state a plausible claim for relief. The 10 |}complaint also does not seek relief that Plaintiff has standing to obtain and that this Court 11 the jurisdiction to provide. For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ordered that 12 || Plaintiff's application to proceed IFP is GRANTED, and the complaint is DISMISSED! 13 || for failure to state a claim pursuant to

(e)(2)(B)Gi). Plaintiff may file an 14 ||amended complaint no later than September 26, 2019. 15 It is SO ORDERED. 16 || Dated: August 26, 2019 € BE 17 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 18 United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 || ———___—_—_—- 28 In light of this ruling, Plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel [Doc. No. 3] is DENIED as moot.