UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
January 25, 2010
GRACE L. SANDOVAL, PLAINTIFF,
HAROLD SADRI, 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 PAUPERIS; DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL Doc. No. 1
Over the past several years, Plaintiff Grace L. Sandoval has filed in excess of 130 separate actions in this district. (See 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, 09cv2695, 09cv2696, 09cv2765, 09cv2767, 09cv2766, 09cv2768, 09cv2769, 09cv2770, 09cv2771, 09cv2772, 09cv2773, 09cv2875, 09cv2876, 09cv2877, 09cv2878, 09cv2879, 09cv2886, 09cv2889, 09cv2890, 09cv2893, 09cv2894, 09cv2895, 09cv2897, 09cv2898, 09cv2899, 09cv2900, 09cv29002, 09cv2903, 09cv2904, 10cv0068, 10cv0069, 10cv0070, 10cv0071, 10cv0072, 10cv0073, 10cv0111, 10cv0112, 10cv0113, 10cv0114, 10cv0115, 10cv0153, 10cv0154, 10cv0156, 10cv0157, 10cv0168, 10cv0169, 10cv0170, 10cv0171). 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 that is mostly unintelligible save some unclear allegations about Defendant claiming ownership of a taxi that planned to "hit" Plaintiff's car. (Doc. No. 1, Complaint). 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.