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

(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

(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

(a). See Andrews v. Cervantes,

(9th Cir. 2007); 3 Rodriguez v. Cook,

(9th Cir. 1999); Escobedo v. Applebees,

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

(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

(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.

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

, 845 16 (9th Cir. 2001) (“[T]he provisions of

(e)(2)(B) are not limited to 17 prisoners.”); Lopez v. Smith,

, 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

and 1985;

and 1343; and 6 ||

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

(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,

, 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