1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROSA PINEDA AGUILA, Case No.: 3:25-cv-01484-CAB-MMP

12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. (1) DENYING IFP APPLICATION; 14 “WILEALDO PINEDA PEREZ,” et al., and 15 Defendants. (2) DISMISSING COMPLAINT 16 WITH PREJUDICE 17

18

19 On June 10, 2025, Plaintiff Rosa Pineda Aguila, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint 20 against Wilealdo Pineda Perez, “Every Person on the System”, and the “People on the 21 Cognition System.” [Compl. at 5.] At the time of filing, Plaintiff did not prepay the civil 22 filing fees

(a) requires. Instead, Plaintiff filed a motion to proceed in 23 forma pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to

(a). [Doc. No. 2.] For the reasons 24 discussed below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s IFP motion and DISMISSES this 25 complaint with prejudice. 26

27

28 1 I. Motion to Proceed IFP 2 Generally, all parties instituting a civil action in this Court must pay a filing fee. See 3

(a); CivLR 4.5(a). But under

(a), the Court may 4 authorize any suit’s commencement, prosecution, or defense without payment of fees if the 5 plaintiff submits an affidavit, including a statement of all his or her assets, showing he or 6 she is unable to pay filing fees or costs. “An affidavit in support of an IFP application is 7 sufficient where it alleges that the affiant cannot pay the court costs and still afford the 8 necessities of life.” Escobedo v. Applebees,

(9th Cir. 2015). “[A] 9 plaintiff seeking IFP status must allege poverty with some particularity, definiteness and 10 certainty.”

(internal quotation marks omitted). Granting or denying leave to proceed 11 IFP in civil cases is within the district court’s sound discretion. Venable v. Meyers, 500

, 1216 (9th Cir. 1974) (citations omitted). 13 Plaintiff motion to proceed IFP is almost entirely blank. [Doc. No. 2.] Assuming 14 Plaintiff has no income, Plaintiff does not explain how they live without spending anything 15 on rent, food, cloth, transportation, etc. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to proceed IFP is 16 DENIED. 17 II. Screening of the Complaint Pursuant to

(e)(2)(B) 18 A plaintiff seeking to proceed IFP pursuant to

(a) is subject to sua 19 sponte dismissal if the complaint is “frivolous or malicious; fails to state a claim on which 20 relief may be granted; or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from 21 such relief.”

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

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

(e)(2)(B) are not limited to prisoners.”); 23 Lopez v. Smith,

, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (“[S]ection 1915(e) not only 24 permits but requires a district court to dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint that fails to 25 state a claim.”). Congress enacted this safeguard because “a litigant whose filing fees and 26 court costs are assumed by the public . . . 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 Plaintiff's complaint is largely incomprehensible. See Jackson v. Arizona,

||639, 640-41 (9th Cir. 1989) (a complaint may be dismissed as frivolous if it lacks an 3 || arguable basis in law or fact), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Lopez v. 4 || Smith,

, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000). Plaintiff asserts a “claim [against] every 5 || inappropriate illegal act on the system.” [Doc. No. | at 6.] This pleading does not state a 6 ||cause of action or provide a basis for subject matter jurisdiction. As such, the Court 7 || dismisses this action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). 8 Hil. Conclusion 9 Plaintiff's IFP application is DENIED and the complaint DISMISSED with 10 || prejudice. 11 It is SO ORDERED. 12 13 Dated: June 13, 2025 (ib 14 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 15 United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28