1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ERIC PERREIRA, Case No.: 22-CV-1846-CAB-WVG

12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION 13 v. FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND 14 A. DEWOODY, ADDISON REEVES and DISMISSING COMPLAINT SAN DIEGO POLICE DEPARTMENT, 15 Defendant. [Doc. Nos. 1, 2] 16

17 On November 23, 2022, Plaintiff Eric Perreira filed a complaint against 18 Defendants A. Dewoody, Allison Reeves, and the San Diego Police Department. [Doc. 19 No. 1]. Plaintiff did not prepay the civil filing fees required by

(a) at the 20 time of filing; instead, he filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 21

(a). [Doc. No. 2]. For the reasons mentioned below, the IFP is 22 GRANTED and the Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice. 23

24 I. Motion to Proceed IFP 25 Generally, all parties instituting a civil action in this court must pay a filing fee. See 26

(a); CivLR 4.5(a). However, under

(a), the court may 27 authorize the commencement, prosecution, or defense of any suit without payment of fees 28 1 if the plaintiff submits an affidavit, including a statement of all his or her assets, showing 2 that he or she is unable to pay filing fees or costs. “An affidavit in support of an IFP 3 application is sufficient where it alleges that the affiant cannot pay the court costs and still 4 afford the necessities of life.” Escobedo v. Applebees,

(9th Cir. 2015). 5 “[A] plaintiff seeking IFP status must allege poverty with some particularity, definiteness 6 and certainty.”

(internal quotation marks omitted). The granting or denial of leave to 7 proceed IFP in civil cases is within the sound discretion of the district court. Venerable v. 8 Meyers,

(9th Cir. 1974) (citations omitted). 9 Plaintiff represents that he lives with his mother and has no income or assets. The 10 combined funds in his checking accounts are less than $400, and he only receives $253 per 11 month in Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (“SNAP”) benefits for food costs. 12 Plaintiff’s application sufficiently shows that he lacks the financial resources to pay filing 13 fees. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion to proceed IFP is GRANTED. 14 15 II. Screening of the Complaint Pursuant to

(e)(2)(B) 16 Upon granting a request to proceed IFP, the Court must additionally analyze the 17 sufficiency of the complaint under 28 U.S.C § 1915. A complaint filed by any person 18 seeking to proceed IFP pursuant to

(a) is subject to sua sponte dismissal 19 if it is “frivolous or malicious; fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or 20 seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.”

1915(e)(2)(B); Calhoun v. Stahl,

(9th Cir. 2001) (“[T]he provisions of 22

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

, 23 1127 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (“[S]ection 1915(e) not only permits, but requires a district 24 court to dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint that fails to state a claim.”). Congress 25 enacted this safeguard because “a litigant whose filing fees and court costs are assumed by 26 the public, unlike a paying litigant, lacks an economic incentive to refrain from filing 27 frivolous, malicious, or repetitive lawsuits.” Denton v. Hernandez,

(1992) 28 (quoting Neitzke v. Williams,

(1989)). 1 Complaints must also comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, which requires 2 that each pleading include a “short and plain statement of the claim,” FED. R. CIV. P. 3 8(a)(2), and that each allegation “be simple, concise, and direct.” FED. R. CIV. P. 8(d)(1). 4 See Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

(2009). In addition to the grounds for sua 5 sponte dismissal set out in § 1915(e)(2)(B), the district court may also dismiss a complaint 6 for failure to comply with Rule 8 if it fails to provide the defendant fair notice of the wrongs 7 allegedly committed. See Cafasso, U.S. ex rel. v. Gen. Dynamics C4 Sys., Inc.,

(9th Cir. 2011) (citing cases upholding Rule 8 dismissals where pleadings were 9 “verbose,” “confusing,” “distracting, ambiguous, and unintelligible,” “highly repetitious,” 10 and comprised of “incomprehensible rambling”). 11 Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Plaintiff 12 appears to file an action against the San Diego Police Department and two individuals for 13 $2,000,000 on behalf of Samantha Eisenberg and her unborn child. It is unclear what Ms. 14 Eisenberg’s relationship is to Plaintiff and she is not listed as a party in the complaint. 15 Additionally, Plaintiff fails to include any details regarding his interactions with each 16 Defendant to put them on fair notice of the wrongs allegedly committed. The facts alleged 17 by Plaintiff are largely incoherent and contradictory, and this complaint does not satisfy 18 the “simple, concise, and direct” requirement of Rule 8. 19 In addition to failing to state a claim, Plaintiff also fails to plead the basis for the 20 Court’s jurisdiction over his claims. Plaintiff does not accuse the Defendants of violating 21 any federal law. The civil cover sheet states there is federal jurisdiction based on diversity 22 under

, which requires the parties in the action to be “citizens of different 23 states” and the amount in controversy to exceed $75,000. However, the record does not 24 properly establish the citizenship of any Defendant to convince the Court that diversity 25 jurisdiction exists. Finally, Plaintiff also fails to identify the location of the events giving 26 rise to this cause of action. It appears the claim may arise out of events that occurred at 27 Plaintiff’s home in Las Vegas, Nevada. If this is true, upon Plaintiff amending his 28 1 || complaint to state a claim in federal court, the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada 2 || would be the most appropriate location to hear that claim. 3 In sum, the complaint is largely incoherent and fails to state a claim, and even if it 4 ||did state a claim, the complaint as it stands does not properly establish the Court’s 5 ||jurisdiction over this case. Accordingly, the complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT 6 ||} PREJUDICE pursuant to

(e)(2)(B). 7 8 iI. Conclusion 9 In light of the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED that the application to proceed in 10 || forma pauperis is GRANTED and the complaint is DISMISSED pursuant to

1915(e)(2)(B). 12 Plaintiff shall have until January 13, 2022 to file an amended complaint under this 13 number resolving the issues discussed above. If Plaintiff does not file an amended 14 |}complaint by January 13, 2022, the Clerk of the Court shall dismiss the case without 15 || prejudice and terminate the action. 16 17 || Dated: December 5, 2022 € 18 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 19 United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28