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

(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

(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

(a). See Rodriguez v. Cook,

(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

(a). 3 Sua Sponte Screening per

(e)(2) 4 Notwithstanding payment of any filing fee or portion thereof, a complaint filed by 5 any person proceeding IFP pursuant to

(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.

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

, 845 9 (9th Cir. 2001) (“[T]he provisions of

(e)(2)(B) are not limited to 10 prisoners.”); Lopez v. Smith,

(9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). Prior to 11 its amendment by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, the former

(d) 12 permitted sua sponte dismissal of only frivolous and malicious claims.

. The 13 newly enacted

(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,

(“[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,

(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

(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.