1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BRIAN M. PORTER Case No.: 20cv399-LAB (AHG)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 13 v. PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS; AND 14 VIETNAM VETERANS OF SAN

DIEGO 15 ORDER DISMISSING Defendant. COMPLAINT 16

17 18 Plaintiff Brian Porter, pro se, filed his complaint along with a motion for leave 19 to proceed in forma pauperis, that is, without paying the filing fee. 20 The IFP motion is in the form of a standard questionnaire, but not all 21 questions are completely answered. There are also some discrepancies between 22 the IFP motion and the complaint. According to the motion, Porter has no assets 23 and no income from any source, and he has not been employed for at least the 24 past two years. His complaint, however, mentions belongings that a person with 25 no income or assets would not normally have. It also mentions his employer 26 forwarding him mail regarding child support, apparently in mid to late 2019. 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 Nevertheless, it is fairly clear that Porter has only modest assets and no 2 disposable income that he could use to pay the filing fee. He is not employed now. 3 The Court concludes he is unable to pay the filing fee, and GRANTS the motion. 4 The Court is required to screen the complaint of any plaintiff proceeding IFP, 5 and to dismiss it to the extent it fails to state a claim or is frivolous. 28 U.S.C. 6 § 1915(e)(2). Dismissal for failure to state a claim under § 1915(e)(2) incorporates 7 the standard for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 12(b)(6). Watison v. Carter,

(9th Cir. 2012). This standard 9 requires a plaintiff to allege facts sufficient to raise her “right to relief above the 10 speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,

(2007).To 11 survive § 1915 review, a complaint must “contain sufficient factual matter, 12 accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” See Ashcroft 13 v. Iqbal,

(2009). The Court is also required bound to raise 14 jurisdictional issues sua sponte, and to dismiss the complaint if jurisdiction is 15 lacking. See Chapman v. Pier 1 Imports (U.S.) Inc.,

(9th Cir. 16 2011) (en banc). 17 The complaint is required to include a “short and plain statement of the 18 grounds for the court’s jurisdiction . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. Porter’s complaint does 19 not include that statement, and the Court is unable to identify any basis for its 20 jurisdiction. 21 The complaint says Porter is suing “Vietnam Veterans of San Diego,” an 22 organization he never identifies. Most likely he means Veterans Village of San 23 Diego, which until 2005 was known as Vietnam Veterans of San Diego. According 24 to its website, Veterans Village of San Diego (“Veterans Village”) is a local private 25 organization offering housing and other services to veterans who are homeless or 26 at risk of becoming homeless. One of its programs is the Bridge Housing program, 27 a short-term transitional housing program. The complaint mentions programs that 28 sound similar to some that Veterans Village offers or participates in, such as the 1 Bridge Housing program, a short-term transitional housing program; and the 2 Homeless Court Program, a program that assists veterans with legal problems. 3 The complaint requests an order dismissing case 37-2019-00060183-CL- 4 UD-CTL1 dismissed with prejudice. (Compl. at 5.) Elsewhere, the complaint 5 mentions a state unlawful detainer action, which may be the same case. He says 6 that because of mis-delivery of his mail he missed his court date in that case on 7 January 20, 2020, and a default judgment was entered. (Compl. at 3.) He also says 8 he was denied relief at an “ex parte meeting” on or around February 11. (Id.) 9 Porter also asks that he be allowed to continue staying temporarily at his 10 apartment. Apparently, this means he wants relief from the default judgment in the 11 state unlawful detainer action. The complaint may also be asking the Court to order 12 that Porter be given a grant of $80,000, though it isn’t clear if he wants the state 13 court or this Court to order it. The request for a grant may be conditioned on 14 whether he receives assistance from the state government. 15 The thrust of Porter’s claim appears to be that he was unjustly removed from 16 Veterans Village’s housing program in connection with some kind of dispute over 17 an assault, and Veterans Village prevailed in an unlawful detainer action against 18 him in state court. He alleges this was accomplished unfairly, through trickery, and 19 mentions some possible federal defenses to his unlawful detainer. He says he is 20 required to vacate by March 5, and apparently is asking the Court to prevent that 21 by vacating the state court’s judgment. 22 The facts are too sketchy to determine whether the state court’s order 23 became final before he filed this action. Assuming that it was final, this Court lacks 24 25 26 1 The format of this case number shows it is a state court case, but the Court is 27 unable to locate it in the public dockets. The Court also cannot locate any civil cases in San Diego county to which anyone named Brian Porter is a party and 28 1 jurisdiction. See Noel v. Hall,

(9 Cir. 2003) (federal courts 2 lack jurisdiction over de facto appeals from state court judgments). But even if the 3 judgment is not final, the Court would likely abstain, under the doctrine announced 4 in Colo. River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States,

(1976), 5 until the state court action is final. Once it is final, his claim in this Court would 6 probably be at end, either because the matter was resolved in his favor (which 7 would make this action moot) or because it was resolved against him, in which 8 case he would be bound by it. See AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Roden,

(9th Cir. 2007). 10 Even assuming the state court were made a party to this action, the Court 11 could not order it to dismiss a pending case. With exceptions that do not apply 12 here, the Anti-Injunction Act,

, forbids this Court from enjoining 13 proceedings in state court. Even if Porter is raising federal defenses to the unlawful 14 detainer claim, they would not give this Court jurisdiction over his claims. See 15 Beneficial Nat’l Bank v. Anderson,

(2003). Porter must raise in state 16 court any federal defenses he thinks he has. 17 The alleged facts also do not show that the Court has authority to order 18 anyone to give Porter a grant, and none of the other claims or relief the complaint 19 mentions appear to be within the Court’s jurisdiction. If Porter is attempting to sue 20 Veterans Village for some other reason, he has not shown what those claims are, 21 or why the Court would have jurisdiction over them. 22 The complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to show that 23 this Court has jurisdiction over Porter’s claims, and for failure to state a claim. If 24 Porter believes he can successfully amend to correct the defects this order has 25 identified, he may file an amended complaint by April 8, 2020. The amended 26 complaint must comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). If Porter does not file an 27 amended complaint within the time permitted, this action will be dismissed 28 for lack of jurisdiction and for failure to prosecute. 1 If Porter's address changes, he is reminded to comply with Civil Local Rule 2 ||83.11(b), which requires him to keep the Court and opposing parties informed as 3 his current address. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 || Dated: March 3, 2020 6 [ Mit 4. Fuga 7 Honorable Larry Alan Burns 8 Chief United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28