1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ELMIRE DEZIRE ETHOL MOORE & Case No.: 3:25-cv-01512-CAB-MSB “MOM,” 12 ORDER Plaintiffs, 13 v. (1) DENYING IFP APPLICATION; 14 and FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, et. 15 al., (2) DISMISSING COMPLAINT 16 Defendants. 17 [Doc. Nos. 1–3.]

18

19 On June 12, 2025, Plaintiffs Elmire Moore and “Mom,” proceeding pro se, filed a 20 complaint against the Federal Bureau of Prisons, Synchrony Brain Health Services, Ice 21 Neurosystems and several other Defendants. [Compl. at 1.] At the time of filing, Plaintiffs 22 did not prepay the civil filing fees

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

(a). [Doc. No. 24 2.] For the reasons discussed below, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ IFP motion and 25 DISMISSES this complaint. 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 Plaintiffs’ have provided no detail on any income that they earn. [Doc. No. 2.] 14 Plaintiffs do not explain how they sustain $2,500 in monthly expenses without any income. 15 Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion to proceed IFP is DENIED. 16 II. Screening of the Complaint Pursuant to

(e)(2)(B) 17 A plaintiff seeking to proceed IFP pursuant to

(a) is subject to sua 18 sponte dismissal if the complaint is “frivolous or malicious; fails to state a claim on which 19 relief may be granted; or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from 20 such relief.”

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

(9th Cir. 21 2001) (“[T]he provisions of

(e)(2)(B) are not limited to prisoners.”); 22 Lopez v. Smith,

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

(1992) 27 (quoting Neitzke v. Williams,

(1989)). 28 1 Plaintiffs’ complaint is largely incomprehensible. See Jackson v. Arizona,

||639, 640-41 (th 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). Plaintiffs do not assert a federal cause of 5 |}action. [Doc. No. | at 6.] This pleading cannot be a basis for subject matter jurisdiction. 6 || Moreover, it is unclear whether venue is even proper in this judicial district given Plaintiffs 7 ||appear to reside in the Central District of California. As such, the Court dismisses this 8 || action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). 9 HI. Conclusion 10 Plaintiffs’ IFP application is DENIED and the complaint is DISMISSED. The 11 |} motion to appoint civil counsel, [Doc. No. 3], is DENIED. 12 13 It is SO ORDERED. 14 15 ||Dated: June 17, 2025 <6 16 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 17 United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28