1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 RAYMONDA SINGLETON, Case No.: 21-cv-1594-CAB-LL

9 Plaintiff, ORDER: 10 v. 1) DISMISSING CIVIL ACTION AS FRIVOLOUS AND FOR FAILING 11 SDG&E, et al., TO STATE A CLAIM PURSUANT 12 Defendants. TO

(e)(2)(B)(i), (ii);

13 AND 14 2) DENYING MOTIONS TO 15 PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 16 AND TO APPOINT COUNSEL AS MOOT [Doc. Nos. 2, 3] 17

18

19 Plaintiff Raymonda Singleton filed this civil action against a host of defendants, 20 including San Diego Gas & Electric (“SDG&E”), Cox Internet, Housing Urban and 21 Development, and Kaiser Hospital, among others. [Doc. No. 1.] Plaintiff did not prepay 22 the civil filing fees required by

(a) at the time of filing; instead, she has 23 filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to

(a) 24 [Doc. No. 2], together with a Motion to Appoint Counsel. [Doc. No. 3.] 25 I. Screening Pursuant to

(e)(2)(B) 26 A complaint filed by any person seeking to proceed IFP pursuant to

1915(a) is subject to sua sponte dismissal if it is “frivolous, malicious, fail[s] to state a 28 1 claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek[s] monetary relief from a defendant 2 immune from such relief.”

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

, 3 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (“[T]he provisions of

(e)(2)(B) are not limited to 4 prisoners.”); Lopez v. Smith,

(9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (“[S]ection 5 1915(e) not only permits, but requires a district court to dismiss an in forma pauperis 6 complaint that fails to state a claim.”); see also Chavez v. Robinson,

, 1167- 7 68 (9th Cir. 2016) (noting that § 1915(e)(2)(B) “mandates dismissal—even if dismissal 8 comes before the defendants are served”). Congress enacted this safeguard because “a 9 litigant whose filing fees and court costs are assumed by the public, unlike a paying litigant, 10 lacks an economic incentive to refrain from filing frivolous, malicious, or repetitive 11 lawsuits.” Denton v. Hernandez,

(1992) (quoting Neitzke v. Williams, 490

, 324 (1989)). 13 Complaints must also comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, which requires 14 that each pleading include a “short and plain statement of the claim,” FED. R. CIV. P. 15 8(a)(2), and that each allegation “be simple, concise, and direct.” FED. R. CIV. P. 8(d)(1). 16 See Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

(2009). In addition to the grounds for sua 17 sponte dismissal set out in § 1915(e)(2)(B), the district court may also dismiss a complaint 18 for failure to comply with Rule 8 if it fails to provide the defendant fair notice of the wrongs 19 allegedly committed. See Cafasso, United States ex rel. v. General Dynamics C4 Systems, 20 Inc.,

(9th Cir. 2011) (citing cases upholding Rule 8 dismissals where 21 pleadings were “verbose,” “confusing,” “distracting, ambiguous, and unintelligible,” 22 “highly repetitious,” and comprised of “incomprehensible rambling”). 23 Here, Plaintiff’s complaint fails to comply with Rule 8 and fails to state a claim upon 24 which relief can be granted. The complaint consists of incoherent and rambling narrative 25 alleging the “energy sources (smart meters)” within Plaintiff’s housing community 26 somehow caused her damage, but it is unclear what laws or rights Plaintiff claims were 27 violated or infringed. Moreover, the only relief Plaintiff seeks is to “assist in my aquiring 28 [sic] assistance in relocating to a healthier environment, assist in investing in products + 1 ||items to live safely and securely in my daily living environment.” [Doc. No. | at 3.] 2 || Plaintiff has not explained why she is entitled to this relief from the Court, or how the Court 3 could provide the requested relief. The complaint is therefore frivolous and fails to state a 4 claim upon which relief can be granted. 5 Accordingly, even if Plaintiff is entitled to proceed IFP, the complaint must be 6 ||dismissed. Anderson v. Sy,

(9th Cir. 2012) (“The district court 7 |\|properly dismissed [the lawsuit] as frivolous because the complaint contains 8 ||indecipherable facts and unsupported legal assertions.”); Adams v. FBI San Francisco 9 || Field Office Supervisor & Agents, No. 19-CV-02977-YGR (PR),

, at *1 10 || (N.D. Cal. Oct. 31, 2019) (“A claim that is totally incomprehensible may be dismissed as 11 || frivolous as it is without an arguable basis in law.”). Moreover, “[w]hen a case may be 12 || classified as frivolous or malicious, there is, by definition, no merit to the underlying action 13 || and so no reason to grant leave to amend.” Lopez,

. 14 ITI. Conclusion 15 For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED as follows: 16 1. The complaint is DISMISSED without leave to amend; 17 2. Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed IFP [Doc. No. 2] and Motion for Appointment of 18 Counsel [Doc. No. 3] are DENIED AS MOOT; 19 3. The Court CERTIFIES that an IFP appeal from this order would be frivolous 20 and therefore would not be taken in good faith pursuant to

1915(a)(3); and 22 4. The Clerk of Court shall CLOSE this case. 23 It is SO ORDERED. 24 Dated: September 13, 2021 € Z 25 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 26 United States District Judge 27 28