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-621 TWR (NLS)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER (1) DENYING 13 v. APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS; (2) DENYING 14 MARINE CORPS, MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF 15 Defendant. COUNSEL; AND (3) DISMISSING CASE WITH PREJUDICE 16

17 (ECF Nos. 2, 3) 18 19 Over the past several weeks, Plaintiff Dolores Kelly has filed at least twenty 20 complaints in this District.1 Each complaint typically consists of one or two-page hand- 21 written and largely unintelligible complaints against various well-known business 22 23 24 1 See Case Numbers 23cv592-JO-DDL, 23cv618-CAB-KSC, 23cv619-JAH-BLM, 23cv620-DMS- 25 DDL, 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-RSH-WVG, 26 23cv687-DMS-MSB, 23cv690-CAB-BLM; 23cv691-CAB-WVG, 23cv692-TWR-WVG, 23cv693- RBM-BLM, and 23cv696-TWR-KSC. A year prior, Plaintiff had also filed four other complaints. See 27 Case Numbers 22cv430-CAB-KSC, 22cv464-CAB-KSC, 22cv500-CAB-KSC, 22cv501-CAB-KSC. Each of those cases was terminated after Plaintiff’s blank IFP applications were denied without prejudice 28 1 executives (including Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Tim Cook, and Bill Gates), politicians and 2 world leaders (including Xi Jingping and Kamala Harris), companies (including U.S. Bank 3 and Bank of America), and government agencies (including the Department of Labor and 4 the FBI). Each complaint is also accompanied by almost entirely blank applications to 5 proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) and motions to appoint counsel. 6 This case, against “Marine Corps,” is similar to the others—it is a two-page 7 handwritten complaint that lacks complete sentences and seeks “repocession [sic] of 8 Marine Corps and the Pentagon” and for NATO forces to intervene. (ECF No. 1 at 2–3.) 9 Like the other cases, the Complaint was accompanied by a nearly blank IFP application 10 (ECF No. 2) and a Motion to Appoint Counsel (ECF No. 3). For the following reasons, 11 the IFP application and Motion to Appoint Counsel are DENIED, and this case is 12 DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 13 Generally, all parties instituting a civil action in this Court must pay a filing fee. See 14

(a); S.D. Cal. CivLR 4.5(a). But the Court may authorize a party to 15 proceed without paying the fee if that party submits an affidavit demonstrating an inability 16 to pay.

(a). “An affidavit in support of an IFP application is sufficient 17 where it alleges that the affiant cannot pay the court costs and still afford the necessities of 18 life.” Escobedo v. Applebees,

(9th Cir. 2015). “[A] plaintiff seeking 19 IFP status must allege poverty ‘with some particularity, definiteness and certainty.’” Id. 20 (citation omitted). 21 Here, Plaintiff’s IFP application is almost entirely blank. She fails to answer any of 22 the questions regarding whether she has any income, assets, or expenses. Without such 23 details, the Court cannot determine whether Plaintiff is entitled to proceed IFP. In other 24 words, based on the lack of “particularity, definiteness and certainty” in the information 25 provided, the Court is not persuaded that Plaintiff lacks the funds to pay the filing fee and 26 “still afford the necessities of life.” Escobedo,

. Therefore, Plaintiff’s 27 application to proceed IFP is DENIED, and Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel is 28 DENIED as moot. 1 Further, because the Complaint is frivolous, the Court finds that granting Plaintiff 2 || leave to file an amended IFP application would be futile. Even if Plaintiff could satisfy the 3 requirements to proceed IFP, the Complaint would be subject to sua sponte dismissal. See 4 1/

(e)(2)(B). Accordingly, because Plaintiff is not entitled to proceed IFP 5 || and did not pay the filing fee with her Complaint, it is hereby ORDERED that this case is 6 || DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Clerk of Court SHALL CLOSE this case. No 7 || further filings under this case number will be accepted. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 Dated: May 2, 2023 —_—— [59 (OQ bre 11 Honorable Todd W. Robinson D United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28