United States District Court, S.D. California
March 20, 2015
MAGDALINA KALINCHEVA, Plaintiff,
JESSE NEUBARTH, Defendant.
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND
LARRY ALAN BURNS, District Judge.
Plaintiff sent an additional amended complaint to the Court in a letter postmarked January 28, 2015. (Document no. 9.) This third complaint has the same deficiencies as Plaintiff's first two complaints in this case: it is rambling and incomprehensible; it provides no plausible basis for federal jurisdiction; and the facts alleged make clear that venue in this district is improper. Thus, Plaintiff's third complaint also falls short of the "short and plain statement" requirement. Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a).
Plaintiff's untimely motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Document no. 6) also fails. First, a district court may deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis where, as here, the face of the complaint reveals that the action is frivolous. Tripati v. First Nat. Bank & Trust, 821 F.2d 1368, 1370 (9th Cir. 1987). Second, Plaintiff's motion is incoherent and the facts of her alleged poverty are not stated with the required "particularity, definiteness and certainty." United States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 940 (9th Cir. 1981). Third, the record shows that the resources available to Plaintiff are sufficient to pay her court costs. Plaintiff's motion indicates that she owns over $6, 000 in stock. While Plaintiff claims that she "cannot afford the losses to sell [her stock], " Plaintiff's asset management preferences do not outweigh the Court's responsibility to "assure that federal funds are not squandered" by funding a financially able litigant. Arnold v. FitFlop USA, LLC, No. 11-CV-0973 W KSC, 2014 WL 3014679, at *1 (S.D. Cal. July 3, 2014).
A search reveals that Plaintiff has filed numerous similar frivolous actions in federal district courts throughout the country. See Kalincheva v. Neubarth, No. 13-CV-384-MMA BLM, 2013 WL 1499028 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 10, 2013); Kalincheva v. Neubarth, No. 13-CV-789-MMA WVG, 2013 WL 2445360 (S.D. Cal. June 4, 2013); Kalincheva v. Neubarth, No. 2:12-CV-2231 JAM DAD, 2012 WL 5328616 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 26, 2012); Kalincheva v. Neubarth, No. 2:13-CV-1601 TLN DAD, 2013 WL 5493407 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 2, 2013); Kalincheva v. Neubarth, No. 1:14-CV-01261-JLT, 2014 WL 5106429 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 10, 2014); Kalincheva v. Neubarth, No. 1:14-CV-01262-LJO, 2014 WL 5106432 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 10, 2014); Kalincheva v. Neubarth, No. CIV.A. 13-40110-TSH, 2013 WL 5524815 (D. Mass. Oct. 2, 2013); Kalincheva v. Neubarth, No. 2:13-CV-00416-PPS, 2013 WL 6170879 (N.D. Ind. Nov. 21, 2013); Kalincheva v. Neubarth, No. 2:13-CV-351, 2014 WL 198707 (W.D. Mich. Jan. 15, 2014); Kalincheva v. Neubarth, No. 14-CV-0020 PJS/JJG, 2014 WL 359381 (D. Minn. Feb. 3, 2014); Kalincheva v. Neubarth, No. 3:13-CV-104, 2014 WL 1240040 (D.N.D. Mar. 25, 2014); Kalincheva v. Neubarth, No. 1:14-CV-00351-EJL, 2014 WL 4656219 (D. Idaho Sept. 16, 2014). The Court finds this behavior vexatious. Plaintiff is warned that federal courts have the authority to declare litigants vexatious and to impose pre-filing conditions on them. 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a); Molski v. Evergreen Dynasty Corp., 500 F.3d 1047, 1057 (9th Cir. 2007). Plaintiff is also warned that courts may impose sanctions on a litigant that submits a frivolous pleading. Fed.R.Civ.P. 11.
Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED and this action is DISMISSED. Any appeal would be frivolous, could not be taken in good faith, and, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), may not be taken in forma pauperis.
IT IS SO ORDERED.