1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BARBARA A. MOORE/BARBARA Case No.: 21cv976 DMS (LL) ANN MOORE, et al. 12 ORDER (1) GRANTING Plaintiffs, 13 PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO v. PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 14 AND (2) DISMISSING COMPLAINT UNITED STATES, et al., 15 WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR Defendants. FAILING TO STATE A CLAIM 16 UPON WHICH RELIEF CAN BE 17 GRANTED PURSUANT TO

(e)(2)(B)(ii) 18 19 20 Plaintiff, a non-prisoner proceeding pro se, has submitted a Complaint along with a 21 request to proceed In Forma Pauperis and a request for appointment of counsel. 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 $402. See

(a); Civil Local Rule 4.5. An action may proceed despite a 26 plaintiff’s failure to prepay the entire fee only if the plaintiff is granted leave to proceed 27 IFP pursuant to

(a). See Rodriguez v. Cook,

(9th 28 Cir. 1999). This Court finds Plaintiff’s affidavit of assets is sufficient to show she is unable 1 to pay the fees or post securities required to maintain this action. See Civil Local Rule 2 3.2(d). Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP pursuant to 28

(a). 4 Sua Sponte Screening per

(e)(2) 5 Notwithstanding payment of any filing fee or portion thereof, a complaint filed by 6 any person proceeding IFP pursuant to

(a) is subject to a mandatory and 7 sua sponte review and dismissal by the court to the extent it is frivolous, malicious, fails to 8 state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant 9 immune from such relief.

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

, 845 10 (9th Cir. 2001) (“[T]he provisions of

(e)(2)(B) are not limited to 11 prisoners.”); Lopez v. Smith,

(9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). Prior to 12 its amendment by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, the former

(d) 13 permitted sua sponte dismissal of only frivolous and malicious claims. Lopez,

1130. The newly enacted

(e)(2), however, mandates that the court 15 reviewing a complaint filed pursuant to the IFP provisions of section 1915 make and rule 16 on its own motion to dismiss before directing that the complaint be served by the U.S. 17 Marshal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(2).

(“[S]ection 1915(e) not only 18 permits, but requires a district court to dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint that fails to 19 state a claim.”); see also Barren v. Harrington,

(9th Cir. 1998) (noting 20 the “the language of § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) parallels the language of Federal Rule of Civil 21 Procedure 12(b)(6).”). 22 Here, Plaintiff’s Complaint consists of twenty-six pages of typed and handwritten 23 allegations, and another eighty-plus pages of exhibits. The allegations and exhibits cover 24 a wide range of topics, including identity theft, insurance fraud, government surveillance, 25 false imprisonment, civil rights violations, cyberbullying and mail theft. However, 26 Plaintiff’s legal claims are unclear, and it is unclear what facts she relies on to support any 27 of her alleged claims. Absent clarification on these issues, Plaintiff’s Complaint is subject 28 to dismissal for failure to state a claim, at a minimum. 1 || Conclusion and Order 2 In light of the above, Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed IFP is GRANTED and the 3 ||Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to state a claim.' Plaintiff is 4 || granted leave to file a First Amended Complaint that cures the pleading deficiencies set 5 || out above. Plaintiff is also reminded of the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6 || 8(a). If Plaintiff wishes to file a First Amended Complaint, she shall do so on or before 7 || August 20, 2021. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 Dated: August 5, 2021 gf, p 10 a Yn. Hon. Dana M. Sabraw, Chief Judge United States District Court 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.