1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DOLORES KELLY, Case No.: 23-CV-691-CAB-WVG

12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING APPLICATION 13 v. TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS [Doc. No. 2], DENYING 14 BANK OF AMERICA, MOTION FOR COUNSEL [Doc. No. 15 Defendant. 3], AND DISMISSING CASE WITH PREJUDICE 16 17 18 Over the past several weeks, Plaintiff Dolores Kelly has filed at least seventeen 19 complaints in this district.1 The one or two-page hand-written and largely unintelligible 20 complaints are against various well-known business executives (including Elon Musk, Jeff 21 Bezos, Tim Cook, and Bill Gates), politicians and world leaders (including Xi Jingping, 22 23 24 1 See Case Numbers 23cv592-JO-DDL, 23cv618-CAB-KSC, 23cv619-JAH-BLM, 23cv620-DMS-DDL, 25 23cv621-TWR-NLS, 23cv622-RSH-DDL, 23cv623-BAS-JLB, 23cv624-AGS-NLS, 23cv625-AGS- MSB, 23cv626-AGS-BGS, 23cv627-CAB-KSC, 23cv684-AGS-DEB, 23cv685-RBM-AHG, 23cv686- 26 RSH-WVG, 23cv687-DMS-MSB, 23cv691-CAB-WVG, 23cv692-TWR-WVG, 23cv693-RBM-BLM. Approximately one year ago, Plaintiff filed four additional complaints. See Case Numbers 22cv430-CAB- 27 KSC, 22cv464-CAB-KSC, 22cv500-CAB-KSC, 22cv501-CAB-KSC. Each of these four cases was terminated after Plaintiff’s blank IFP applications were denied without prejudice and she failed to re-file 28 1 Kamala Harris, and Jerry Yang), and companies (including U.S. Bank and Bank of 2 America), and all are accompanied by almost entirely blank applications to proceed in 3 forma pauperis (“IFP”) and motions to appoint counsel. 4 This case, against Bank of America, is similar to the others. The complaint is less 5 than 100 words, lacks complete sentences, and prays for the relief of “Repocession [sic] of 6 the banks.” Like the other cases, the complaint was accompanied by a blank IFP 7 application and a motion to appoint counsel. For the following reasons, the IFP application 8 and motion to appoint counsel are denied, and this case is dismissed. 9 Generally, all parties instituting a civil action in this court must pay a filing fee. See 10

(a); CivLR 4.5(a). But the court may authorize a party to proceed without 11 paying the fee if that party submits an affidavit demonstrating an inability to pay. 28 U.S.C. 12 § 1915(a). “An affidavit in support of an IFP application is sufficient where it alleges that 13 the affiant cannot pay the court costs and still afford the necessities of life.” Escobedo v. 14 Applebees,

(9th Cir. 2015). “[A] plaintiff seeking IFP status must 15 allege poverty with some particularity, definiteness and certainty.”

(internal quotation 16 marks omitted). 17 Here, Plaintiff’s IFP application is almost entirely blank. She fails to answer any of 18 the questions regarding whether she has any income, assets, or expenses. Without such 19 details, the Court cannot determine whether Plaintiff is entitled to proceed IFP. In other 20 words, based on the lack of “particularity, definiteness and certainty” in the information 21 provided, the Court is not persuaded that Plaintiff lacks the funds to pay the filing fee and 22 “still afford the necessities of life.” Escobedo,

. Therefore, Plaintiff’s 23 application to proceed IFP [Doc. Nos. 2] is DENIED, and Plaintiff’s motion to appoint 24 counsel [Doc. No. 3] is DENIED as moot. 25 Further, because the complaint is utterly frivolous, the Court finds that granting 26 Plaintiff leave to file an amended IFP application would be futile. Even if Plaintiff could 27 satisfy the requirements to proceed IFP, the complaint would be subject to sua sponte 28 dismissal. Accordingly, because Plaintiff is not entitled to proceed IFP and did not pay the 1 || filing fee with her complaint, it is hereby ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED. The 2 Clerk of Court shall CLOSE this case. No further filings under this case number will be 3 || accepted. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 Dated: April 18, 2023 € □ 6 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 7 United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28