United States District Court, E.D. California
ALLISON CLAIRE, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
are proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was
accordingly referred to the undersigned by E.D. Cal. R.
(“Local Rule”) 302(c)(21). Plaintiffs have
requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915. ECF No. 2. The request will be denied
because (1) the affidavit fails to provide the required
information, and (2) the complaint, in its current form, is
INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION IN THE IFP APPLICATION
in forma pauperis application does not make the showing
required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). Plaintiffs disclose
that they received money from “Any other sources”
during the past 12 months. ECF No. 2 at 1. However,
plaintiffs fail to disclose “the amount received and
what you expect you will continue to receive, ”
although they do identify the sources of the funds, namely
“SSI, SSA, IHSS, Financial (UC Davis full time).”
See Id. at 1-2. Without the requested income
information, the court cannot determine if plaintiffs meet
the requirements for filing IFP.
“plaintiff’s claim appears to be frivolous on the
face of the complaint, ” the district court may
“deny plaintiff leave to file in forma
pauperis.” O’Loughlin v. Doe, 920
F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1990). Plaintiffs must assist the
court in making this determination by drafting their
complaint so that it complies with the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure (“Fed. R. Civ. P.”). The Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure are available online at
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the complaint must
contain (1) a “short and plain statement” of the
basis for federal jurisdiction (that is, the reason the case
is filed in this court, rather than in a state court), (2) a
short and plain statement showing that plaintiffs are
entitled to relief (that is, who harmed the plaintiffs, and
in what way), and (3) a demand for the relief sought.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a). Plaintiffs’ claims must be set forth
simply, concisely and directly. Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(d)(1). Forms
are available to help pro se plaintiffs organize their
complaint in the proper way. They are available at the
Clerk’s Office, 501 I Street, 4th Floor (Rm. 4-200),
Sacramento, CA 95814, or online at
is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either
in law or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S.
319, 325 (1989). In reviewing a complaint under this
standard, the court will (1) accept as true all of the
factual allegations contained in the complaint, unless they
are clearly baseless or fanciful, (2) construe those
allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and
(3) resolve all doubts in the plaintiffs’ favor.
See Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327; Erickson v.
Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007); Von Saher v. Norton
Simon Museum of Art at Pasadena, 592 F.3d 954, 960 (9th
Cir. 2010); Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 340 (9th
Cir. 2010). However, the court need not accept as true, legal
conclusions cast in the form of factual allegations, or
allegations that contradict matters properly subject to
judicial notice. See Western Mining Council v. Watt,
643 F.2d 618, 624 (9th Cir. 1981); Sprewell v. Golden
State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir.), as
amended, 275 F.3d 1187 (2001).
pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than those
drafted by lawyers. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519,
520 (1972). Pro se complaints are construed liberally and may
only be dismissed if it appears beyond doubt that the
plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim
which would entitle him to relief. Nordstrom v.
Ryan, 762 F.3d 903, 908 (9th Cir. 2014). A pro se
litigant is entitled to notice of the deficiencies in the
complaint and an opportunity to amend, unless the
complaint’s deficiencies could not be cured by
amendment. See Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448
(9th Cir. 1987).
complaint is extremely difficult to read. The allegations
consist principally of partial or indecipherable
sentences. The court has nevertheless extracted as
much information as it can from the complaint, and sets forth
the alleged facts as best it can. The allegations are
presumed to be true only for purposes of this screening.
appears that plaintiff Le was involved in an accident on
January 4, 2013, that caused her to become disabled.
Complaint (ECF No. 1) at 7. As best the court can tell,
plaintiff Le sued defendant Aznoe in Yolo County Superior
Court on December 20, 2014 for personal injury. Complaint at
34 (Exhibit: Superior Court Complaint). The case was
transferred to Sacramento County Superior Court. Complaint at
33 (Exhibit: Yolo County Appeals Clerk Declaration). The
complaint seems to allege that in Superior Court, plaintiff
Le was told that the court had no authority over the case.
Complaint at 5, 86 (Exhibit: Witness Statement). Plaintiff Le
took her case to the California Court of Appeal, Third
District, in Sacramento, but the court did not allow her a
hearing, or to “submit [a] full case.” Complaint
at 5. Plaintiff took her case to the California Supreme
Court, which denied review, and also refused a hearing.
Complaint at 5, 15 (Exhibit: denial of petition for review by
California Supreme Court).
sue “Raye P. J, ” alleged to be a “Judge of
the Court Third district, ” and “Deena Fawceet,
” alleged to be the Clerk of that court. Complaint at
6. Plaintiffs allege that the judge “was not equal and
fair, he did not see and hear our voice, he did not seat on
the chair in the room at Public Court, he was made pain and
hurt for us.” Id. Plaintiffs allege that the
Clerk abused her office, lied and cheated, hid information on
the court’s system, and failed to stop illegal
actions.” Complaint at 7.
sue “Frank A. Mcguire Clerk, ”
“Cantil-Sakaye” and “Janell, Jaime, ”
apparently of the California Supreme Court. Complaint at 7.
It appears that plaintiffs sue these defendants because they
did not give ...