Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Bruce Derrick Calhoun v. San Diego County

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


May 10, 2011

BRUCE DERRICK CALHOUN, PLAINTIFF,
v.
SAN DIEGO COUNTY, ET AL.
DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Michael M. Anello United States District Judge

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND; DENYING MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS; AND DENYING AS MOOT REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

[Doc. Nos. 2, 3]

Plaintiff Bruce Derrick Calhoun, proceeding pro se, has filed a complaint [Doc. No. 1], along with a Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis ("IFP") [Doc. No. 2] and a Request for Appointment Counsel [Doc. No. 3]. In his affidavit supporting his motion to proceed IFP, Plaintiff attests that he receives $1,074 per month in social security. Although a party need not be completely destitute to proceed IFP, a party must still show he or she cannot pay the filing fee and still provide the "necessities of life" for his or her family. Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339-40 (1948). Plaintiff has failed to satisfy that requirement, and therefore is not excused from paying the $350 filing fee. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), the Court DENIES Plaintiff's IFP motion.

Notwithstanding payment of any filing fee or portion thereof, a complaint filed by any person seeking to proceed IFP is subject to sua sponte review and dismissal by the Court. The Court is obligated to review a complaint and must dismiss the action if it determines the complaint is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim for relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). After careful review, the Court finds that Plaintiff's complaint is frivolous and void of any plausible claims for relief. The Court also notes Plaintiff's allegations are similar to those set forth in previously filed (and dismissed) complaints in this Court. See, e.g. Calhoun v. San Diego County, et al., USDC,Southern District of California, Case No. 11cv425 JAH.

Because "it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by amendment," the Court DISMISSES the complaint without leave to amend. Franklin v. Murphy, 245 F.2d 1221, 1228 n.9 (9th Cir. 1984). As such, the Court DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiff's Request for Appointment of Counsel.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20110510

© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.