Bell v. Oama Coronado LLC

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: May 12, 2025
• Docket: 3:25-cv-01170
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL BELL, et al., Case No.: 25-cv-01170-CAB-DEB

12 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 13 v. PROCEED IFP AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT AND MOTION 14 OAMA CORONADO LLC, et al.,

15 Defendants. [Doc. Nos. 1–3] 16 17 On May 7, 2025, Plaintiffs Michael Bell and Lisa Philips filed a complaint against 18 Defendants Oama Coronado LLC, Todd Brisco & Associates, Valerie Sparks, Judge Peter 19 F. Murray, and Sirein Roman. [Doc. No. 1.] Plaintiffs did not prepay the civil filing fees 20 required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) at the time of filing; instead, they filed a motion to proceed 21 in forma pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). [Doc. No. 2.] Plaintiffs also 22 filed a motion to stay ongoing Superior Court proceedings. [Doc. No. 3.] For the reasons 23 outlined below, the IFP motion is granted, and the Plaintiffs’ complaint and motion to stay 24 are dismissed. 25 I. Motion to Proceed IFP 26 Generally, all parties instituting a civil action in this court must pay a filing fee. See 27 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); CivLR 4.5(a). However, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), the court may 28 authorize the commencement, prosecution, or defense of any suit without payment of fees 1 if the plaintiff submits an affidavit, including a statement of all his or her assets, showing 2 that he or she is unable to pay filing fees or costs. “An affidavit in support of an IFP 3 application is sufficient where it alleges that the affiant cannot pay the court costs and still 4 afford the necessities of life.” Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 2015). 5 “[A] plaintiff seeking IFP status must allege poverty with some particularity, definiteness 6 and certainty.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). The granting or denial of leave to 7 proceed IFP in civil cases is within the sound discretion of the district court. Venerable v. 8 Meyers, 500 F.2d 1215, 1216 (9th Cir. 1974) (citations omitted). 9 In support of their application, Plaintiffs jointly list minimal assets. [Doc. No. 2.] 10 Plaintiffs receive income from self-employment and public assistance. [Id. at 1–2.] Their 11 average monthly expenses are nearly double this income. [Id. at 4.] Plaintiffs provide 12 significant detail to support this monthly shortfall. [Id.] Based on the “particularity, 13 definiteness and certainty” in the information provided, the Court is persuaded that 14 Plaintiffs lack the funds to pay the filing fee and “still afford the necessities of life.” 15 Escobedo, 787 F.3d at 1234. 16 II. Screening of the Complaint Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) 17 Nevertheless, upon granting a request to proceed IFP, the Court must additionally 18 analyze a complaint’s sufficiency under 28 U.S.C § 1915. A plaintiff seeking to proceed 19 IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) is subject to sua sponte dismissal if the complaint is 20 “frivolous or malicious; fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or seeks 21 monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 22 1915(e)(2)(B); Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (“[T]he provisions of 23 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) are not limited to prisoners.”). Congress enacted this safeguard 24 because “a litigant whose filing fees and court costs are assumed by the public . . . lacks an 25 economic incentive to refrain from filing frivolous, malicious, or repetitive lawsuits.” 26 Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31 (1992) (quoting Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 27 324 (1989)). 28 1 The Court construes Plaintiffs’ complaint and motion liberally. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 2 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010). The gravamen of the 172-page filing appears to relate 3 to a pending unlawful detainer dispute in state court. 4 As it relates to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), “subject-matter jurisdiction, because it 5 involves a court’s power to hear a case, can never be forfeited or waived.” United States 6 v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625, 630 (2002). This threshold requirement “‘spring[s] from the 7 nature and limits of the judicial power of the United States’ and is ‘inflexible and without 8 exception.’” Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 94–95 (1998) (quoting 9 Mansfield, C. & L.M. Ry. Co. v. Swan, 111 U.S. 379, 382 (1884). Federal courts are courts 10 of limited jurisdiction and lack of jurisdiction is presumed unless proven otherwise. See 11 Stock W., Inc. v. Confederated Tribes of the Colville Rsrv., 873 F.2d 1221, 1225 (9th Cir. 12 1989). 13 There are numerous problems with these pleadings. Plaintiffs appear to have sued a 14 state judge presiding over their dispute for acts performed in his judicial capacity. See 15 Mullis v. U.S. Bankr. Ct. for Dist. of Nevada, 828 F.2d 1385, 1394 (9th Cir. 1987). 16 Moreover, under the Younger abstention doctrine, the Court will not exercise jurisdiction 17 to stay or enjoin an ongoing unlawful detainer proceeding. Dubinka v. Judges of Superior 18 Ct. of State of Cal. for Cnty. of Los Angeles, 23 F.3d 218, 223 (9th Cir. 1994). And if the 19 proceedings have concluded, federal district courts do not have jurisdiction over direct 20 challenges to final decisions of state courts or claims whose resolution “are inextricably 21 intertwined with a state court’s decision.” D.C. Ct. of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 22 483 n. 16 (1983). Finally, the Anti-Injunction Act also prohibits this Court from enjoining 23 current state court proceedings with limited exceptions, none of which apply here. 24 28 U.S.C. § 2283; see Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Bhd. of Locomotive Eng’rs, 398 U.S. 281, 25 286 (1970) (listing exceptions). 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// l II. Conclusion 2 Plaintiffs’ application to proceed IFP, [Doc. No. 2], is granted. The Court dismisses 3 || Plaintiffs’ complaint and motion for stay under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). [Doc. Nos. 1 and 4 ||3.] Plaintiffs shall have until June 2, 2025 to amend their complaint. Plaintiffs may amend 5 ||their complaint to plead a proper federal claim that allows this Court to exercise 6 ||jurisdiction. The Court will again screen any amended complaint. Plaintiffs are reminded 7 federal courts are required to examine jurisdiction sua sponte—meaning on their own 8 |/initiative. See Bernhardt v. County of Los Angeles, 279 F.3d 862, 868 (9th Cir. 2002). 9 10 || Dated: May 12, 2025 € 11 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 12 United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28