UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
January 4, 2010
GRACE L. SANDOVAL, PLAINTIFF,
JOE S. REYNA, PAUPERIS; DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller United States District Judge
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITHOUT PREJUDICE; DENYING MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
Over the past several years, Plaintiff Grace L. Sandoval has filed in excess of 90 separate actions in this district. 08cv1297, 08cv1621, 08cv1622, 08cv1623, 08cv1848, 08cv1849, 08cv1853, 98cv1854, 08cv1868, 08cv1869, 08cv1870, 08cv1944, 08cv2004, 08cv2005, 08cv2057, 08cv2104, 08cv2105, 08cv2151, 09cv0269, 09cv0422, 09cv423, 09cv0424, 09cv0437, 09cv0438, 09cv0441, 09cv0454, 09cv0455, 09cv0456, 09cv0474, 09cv0475, 09cv0476, 09cv0477, 09cv0478, 09cv0491, 09cv0492, 09cv0493, 09cv0494, 09cv0495, 09cv582, 09cv0583, 09cv585, 09cv586, 09cv0588, 09cv0600, 09cv0642, 09cv1232, 09cv1506, 09cv1506, 09cv1507, 09cv1508, 09cv1514, 09cv1515, 09cv1520, 09cv1524, 09cv1526, 09cv1849, 09cv2122, 09cv2141, 09cv2148, 09cv2204, 09cv2205, 09cv2206, 09cv2217, 09cv2218, 09cv2217, 09cv2218, 09cv2244, 09cv2245, 09cv2250, 09cv2251, 09cv2252, 09cv2304, 09cv2305, 09cv2306, 09cv2307, 09cv2308, 09cv2309, 09cv2310, 09cv2311, 09cv2312, 09cv2313, 09cv2450, 09cv2452, 09cv2453, 09cv2462,09cv2463, 09cv2464, 09cv2465, 09cv2466, 09cv2467, 09cv2526, 09cv2528. Each action was brought in propria persona and in forma pauperis. Each appears to have been dismissed as frivolous or for failure to state a claim. The present complaint fairs no better.
Without identifying the basis for the court's subject matter jurisdiction, the complaint sets forth a rambling narrative of charges and conclusions concerning, for example, allegations that Defendant, and his brother, planned to steal everything Plaintiff owns and to "kidnap children born premature[ly] with the drug provera." (Compl. at p.1). As the present complaint, like the scores of previously filed complaints, fails to identify any basis for federal jurisdiction, or to set forth a coherent statement of her claims, the court dismisses the complaint at bar as frivolous, for failure to state a claim, and for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
The Clerk of Court is instructed to dismiss the action without prejudice. Until Plaintiff pays the filing fee or demonstrates an imminent danger of serious physical injury, the Clerk of Court is instructed to reject for filing any further document received from Plaintiff in this case. The court also denies Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis and for appointment of counsel as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.