Cessaly D. Hutchinson v. Gale Pines Nicholson, et al.

S.D. California

Cessaly D. Hutchinson v. Gale Pines Nicholson, et al.

DecidedJanuary 7, 2026

Docket3:25-cv-03371

StatusUnknown

This text of Cessaly D. Hutchinson v. Gale Pines Nicholson, et al. (Cessaly D. Hutchinson v. Gale Pines Nicholson, et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cessaly D. Hutchinson v. Gale Pines Nicholson, et al., (S.D. Cal. 2026).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CESSALY D. HUTCHINSON, Case No.: 25-cv-3371-RSH-JLB

12 Plaintiff, ORDER (1) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 13 v. MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS, AND (2) DISMISSING 14 GALE PINES NICHOLSON, et al., COMPLAINT 15 Defendants. [ECF No. 5] 16

17 18 On December 1, 2025, plaintiff Cessaly D. Hutchinson, proceeding pro se, filed this 19 lawsuit along with a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). ECF Nos. 1 (“Compl.”); 20 2. Plaintiff sues three individuals: Gale Pines Nicholson, Phyllis Pines Garnett, and 21 Timothy Nicholson. 22 On December 3, 2025, the Court issued an order (1) denying Plaintiff’s IFP motion 23 as incomplete, and (2) dismissing the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) for 24 failure to state a claim. ECF No. 3. The Court granted Plaintiff leave to either pay the filing 25 fee or file a new IFP motion, and to file an amended complaint. Id. at 5. 26 On December 10, 2025, Plaintiff filed her Amended Complaint along with a new 27 IFP motion. ECF Nos. 4, 5. 28 // 1 I. MOTION TO PROCEED IFP 2 All parties instituting a civil action, suit, or proceeding in a district court of the 3 United States, other than a petition for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of $405.1 4 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed despite a party’s failure to pay the filing fee 5 only if the party is granted leave to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). See 6 Moore v. Maricopa Cnty. Sheriff’s Office, 657 F.3d 890, 892 (9th Cir. 2011) (“All persons, 7 not just prisoners, may seek IFP status.”); Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th 8 Cir. 1999). A federal court may authorize the commencement of an action without the 9 prepayment of fees if the party submits an affidavit, including a statement of assets, 10 showing an inability to pay the required filing fee. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). “An affidavit in 11 support of an IFP application is sufficient where it alleges that the affiant cannot pay the 12 court costs and still afford the necessities of life.” Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 13 1234 (9th Cir. 2015). 14 The Court denied Plaintiff’s previous IFP application as incomplete. ECF No. 3 at 15 5. Plaintiff’s second IFP application is also incomplete. The application does not indicate 16 whether Plaintiff is employed, identify her employee, or state her gross or take-home pay 17 or wages. See ECF No. 5 at 1. Additionally, within the “other income” section, Plaintiff 18 provides no response to three of the six questions, declining to indicate either “Yes” or 19 “No” for each category of income. See id. The Court denies the application. 20 // 21 // 22 // 23

24 25 1 In addition to the $350 statutory fee, civil litigants must pay an additional administrative fee of $55. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); United States Courts, District Court 26 Miscellaneous Fee Schedule § 14 (effective Dec. 1, 2023), 27 https://www.uscourts.gov/servicesforms/fees/district-court-miscellaneous-fee-schedule. The additional $55 administrative fee does not apply to persons granted leave to proceed 28 1 II. SCREENING PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) 2 A. Legal Standard 3 A complaint filed by any person seeking to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 4 1915(a) is subject to sua sponte review and dismissal should the Court determine, inter 5 alia, that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be 6 granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 7 2000) (“[S]ection 1915(e) applies to all in forma pauperis complaints, not just those filed 8 by prisoners.”). “The standard for determining whether a plaintiff has failed to state a claim 9 upon which relief can be granted under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is the same as the Federal Rule 10 of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) standard for failure to state a claim.” Watison v. Carter, 668 11 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012); see also Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th 12 Cir. 2012) (noting that § 1915A screening “incorporates the familiar standard applied in 13 the context of failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)”). 14 Rule 12(b)(6) requires a complaint to “contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, 15 to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 16 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). 17 In addition to reviewing IFP complaints under § 1915, “[f]ederal courts have an 18 independent obligation to ensure that they do not exceed the scope of their jurisdiction, and 19 therefore they must raise and decide jurisdictional questions that the parties either overlook 20 or elect not to press.” Henderson ex rel. Henderson v. Shinseki, 562 U.S. 428, 434 (2011). 21 Courts address the issue of subject matter jurisdiction first, as “[t]he requirement that 22 jurisdiction be established as a threshold matter ‘spring[s] from the nature and limits of the 23 judicial power of the United States’ and is ‘inflexible and without exception.’” Steel Co. v. 24 Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 94–95 (1998) (alteration in original) (quoting 25 Mansfield, C. & L.M. Ry. Co. v. Swan, 111 U.S. 379, 382 (1884)). “If the court determines 26 at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.” Fed. 27 R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). 28 // l B. _ Discussion 2 The Court’s order of December 3, 2025, discussed the allegations in the Complaint 3 concluded that—although the Complaint states that it seeks damages for assault and 4 ||battery, emotional distress, libel and slander, false imprisonment, and other financial 5 ||damages—the Complaint failed to state any claim. ECF No. 3 at 4. The Court also noted 6 || that the Complaint failed to establish federal jurisdiction by pleading a federal claim, or by 7 || establishing complete diversity of citizenship between Plaintiff and each of the defendants. 8 ||/d. The Court granted Plaintiff thirty days to “file an amended complaint addressing the 9 ||deficiencies identified herein and establishing a basis for federal subject matter 10 jurisdiction.” /d. at 5.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CESSALY D. HUTCHINSON, Case No.: 25-cv-3371-RSH-JLB

12 Plaintiff, ORDER (1) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 13 v. MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS, AND (2) DISMISSING 14 GALE PINES NICHOLSON, et al., COMPLAINT 15 Defendants. [ECF No. 5] 16

17 18 On December 1, 2025, plaintiff Cessaly D. Hutchinson, proceeding pro se, filed this 19 lawsuit along with a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). ECF Nos. 1 (“Compl.”); 20 2. Plaintiff sues three individuals: Gale Pines Nicholson, Phyllis Pines Garnett, and 21 Timothy Nicholson. 22 On December 3, 2025, the Court issued an order (1) denying Plaintiff’s IFP motion 23 as incomplete, and (2) dismissing the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) for 24 failure to state a claim. ECF No. 3. The Court granted Plaintiff leave to either pay the filing 25 fee or file a new IFP motion, and to file an amended complaint. Id. at 5. 26 On December 10, 2025, Plaintiff filed her Amended Complaint along with a new 27 IFP motion. ECF Nos. 4, 5. 28 // 1 I. MOTION TO PROCEED IFP 2 All parties instituting a civil action, suit, or proceeding in a district court of the 3 United States, other than a petition for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of $405.1 4 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed despite a party’s failure to pay the filing fee 5 only if the party is granted leave to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). See 6 Moore v. Maricopa Cnty. Sheriff’s Office, 657 F.3d 890, 892 (9th Cir. 2011) (“All persons, 7 not just prisoners, may seek IFP status.”); Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th 8 Cir. 1999). A federal court may authorize the commencement of an action without the 9 prepayment of fees if the party submits an affidavit, including a statement of assets, 10 showing an inability to pay the required filing fee. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). “An affidavit in 11 support of an IFP application is sufficient where it alleges that the affiant cannot pay the 12 court costs and still afford the necessities of life.” Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 13 1234 (9th Cir. 2015). 14 The Court denied Plaintiff’s previous IFP application as incomplete. ECF No. 3 at 15 5. Plaintiff’s second IFP application is also incomplete. The application does not indicate 16 whether Plaintiff is employed, identify her employee, or state her gross or take-home pay 17 or wages. See ECF No. 5 at 1. Additionally, within the “other income” section, Plaintiff 18 provides no response to three of the six questions, declining to indicate either “Yes” or 19 “No” for each category of income. See id. The Court denies the application. 20 // 21 // 22 // 23

24 25 1 In addition to the $350 statutory fee, civil litigants must pay an additional administrative fee of $55. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); United States Courts, District Court 26 Miscellaneous Fee Schedule § 14 (effective Dec. 1, 2023), 27 https://www.uscourts.gov/servicesforms/fees/district-court-miscellaneous-fee-schedule. The additional $55 administrative fee does not apply to persons granted leave to proceed 28 1 II. SCREENING PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) 2 A. Legal Standard 3 A complaint filed by any person seeking to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 4 1915(a) is subject to sua sponte review and dismissal should the Court determine, inter 5 alia, that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be 6 granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 7 2000) (“[S]ection 1915(e) applies to all in forma pauperis complaints, not just those filed 8 by prisoners.”). “The standard for determining whether a plaintiff has failed to state a claim 9 upon which relief can be granted under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is the same as the Federal Rule 10 of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) standard for failure to state a claim.” Watison v. Carter, 668 11 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012); see also Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th 12 Cir. 2012) (noting that § 1915A screening “incorporates the familiar standard applied in 13 the context of failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)”). 14 Rule 12(b)(6) requires a complaint to “contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, 15 to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 16 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). 17 In addition to reviewing IFP complaints under § 1915, “[f]ederal courts have an 18 independent obligation to ensure that they do not exceed the scope of their jurisdiction, and 19 therefore they must raise and decide jurisdictional questions that the parties either overlook 20 or elect not to press.” Henderson ex rel. Henderson v. Shinseki, 562 U.S. 428, 434 (2011). 21 Courts address the issue of subject matter jurisdiction first, as “[t]he requirement that 22 jurisdiction be established as a threshold matter ‘spring[s] from the nature and limits of the 23 judicial power of the United States’ and is ‘inflexible and without exception.’” Steel Co. v. 24 Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 94–95 (1998) (alteration in original) (quoting 25 Mansfield, C. & L.M. Ry. Co. v. Swan, 111 U.S. 379, 382 (1884)). “If the court determines 26 at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.” Fed. 27 R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). 28 // l B. _ Discussion 2 The Court’s order of December 3, 2025, discussed the allegations in the Complaint 3 concluded that—although the Complaint states that it seeks damages for assault and 4 ||battery, emotional distress, libel and slander, false imprisonment, and other financial 5 ||damages—the Complaint failed to state any claim. ECF No. 3 at 4. The Court also noted 6 || that the Complaint failed to establish federal jurisdiction by pleading a federal claim, or by 7 || establishing complete diversity of citizenship between Plaintiff and each of the defendants. 8 ||/d. The Court granted Plaintiff thirty days to “file an amended complaint addressing the 9 ||deficiencies identified herein and establishing a basis for federal subject matter 10 jurisdiction.” /d. at 5. 11 The Amended Complaint does not overcome the pleading deficiencies previously 12 identified. The allegations in the Amended Complaint are substantially similar to those in 13 Complaint. The Amended Complaint contains a reference to a federal statute, 18 U.S.C. 14 || § 241, but this statute is a criminal provision for conspiracy against civil rights, and does 15 confer a private right of action. Additionally, the Amended Complaint does not plead 16 |/a civil cause of action for violation of civil rights. No defendant is alleged to have acted 17 || under color of law. The Court concludes that the Amended Complaint fails to state a claim 18 || or properly invoke federal jurisdiction. The Court concludes that further amendment would 19 || be futile and declines to grant leave to amend. 20 CONCLUSION 21 For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion to proceed IFP 22 ||[ECF No. 5] and DISMISSES the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) without 23 || leave to amend. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 || Dated: January 7, 2026 26 □□□ S Ew 17 Hon. Robert S. Huie United States District Judge 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Cessaly D. Hutchinson v. Gale Pines Nicholson, et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cessaly-d-hutchinson-v-gale-pines-nicholson-et-al-casd-2026.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack