James Thomas v. Melissa Miramontes and Ramon Bazan

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: November 20, 2025
• Docket: 3:25-cv-02028
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 JAMES THOMAS, Case No.: 3:25-cv-02028-CAB-KSC Plaintiff, 10 ORDER DENYING APPLICATION v. 11 TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND CLOSING CASE 12 MELISSA MIRAMONTES and RAMON

BAZAN, 13

Defendants. 14 [Doc. No. 9] 15

17 18 Plaintiff James Thomas (“Plaintiff” or “Thomas”) filed a civil complaint in the 19 Southern District of Mississippi, [Doc. No. 1 (“Complaint” or “Compl.”)], along with a 20 request to proceed in forma pauperis [Doc. No. 9 (“IFP request”).] [Doc. No. 2.] The case 21 was transferred to this district because both named Defendants allegedly reside in San 22 Diego and the event Plaintiff describes occurred in San Diego. [Doc. No. 10.] For the 23 reasons discussed below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to proceed IFP. 24 I. BACKGROUND 25 Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges “[h]ate crime, [d]efamation on the [p]eople, false arrest 26 [by San Diego Police Department], and discrimination.” [Compl. at 4.] The Complaint 27 appears to stem from a number of interactions described in a mostly unintelligible 28 document filed approximately two weeks after the Complaint was filed. [Doc. No. 4.] 1 With respect to Defendant Miramontes, a security guard with a private security company, 2 Plaintiff alleges she “selectively targeted” Plaintiff to move his tent off the sidewalk so the 3 sidewalk could be cleaned. [Doc. No. 4 at 2.] With respect to Defendant Bazan, though 4 the attachment seems to mention various unrelated interactions with the San Diego Police 5 Department in 2021 and 2022, Defendant Bazan’s role is entirely unclear. [Id. at 1.] He 6 is simply listed at the end of the attachment with his name and badge number. [Id.] 7 I. DISCUSSION 8 A. MOTION TO PROCEED IFP 9 All parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in a district court of the 10 United States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of 11 $405.1 See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). A party may initiate a civil action without prepaying the 12 required filing fee if the Court grants leave to proceed IFP based on indigency. 28 U.S.C. 13 § 1915(a); Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1050 (9th Cir. 2007). To satisfy the 14 requirements of § 1915(a), “an affidavit [of poverty] is sufficient which states that one 15 cannot because of his poverty pay or give security for the costs . . . and still be able to 16 provide [for himself] and dependents with the necessities of life.” Adkins v. E. I. DuPont 17 de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also 18 Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1229 (9th Cir. 2015). 19 The Southern District of California has a standardized application to proceed IFP 20 which requires a detailed accounting of income and expenses that is signed by the 21 requestor. Here, Plaintiff submitted documentation only of his monthly Social Security 22 benefits and the amount of his rent. [Doc. No. 9.] The Court cannot properly assess 23 Plaintiff’s IFP application without complete documentation as required by our district’s 24 25 26 27 1 Civil litigants must pay an administrative fee of $55 in addition to the $350 filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) (Judicial Conference Schedule of Fees, District Court Misc. Fee Schedule, § 14 (eff. Dec. 1, 28 1 form affidavit. The Court therefore DENIES Plaintiff’s IFP application and ORDERS the 2 Clerk of Court to provide a copy of the district’s application to proceed IFP to the Plaintiff. 3 B. SCREENING PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) 4 If Plaintiff submits a completed IFP and the Court grants it, the Court must then 5 screen the complaint and sua sponte dismiss it to the extent that it fails to state a claim or 6 seeks damages from defendants who are immune. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see Lopez 7 v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126–27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). Section 1915(e)(2)(B) is not 8 limited to prisoners; instead, it applies to all cases in which the plaintiff proceeds IFP. See 9 Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2001). 10 Given Plaintiff’s position as a pro se litigant, the Court notes that the current 11 Complaint is missing basic information and is on the whole nearly impossible to decipher. 12 First, any alleged facts must be contained in the complaint itself, not as a separate 13 attachment. United States v. Ritchie, 342 F.3d 903, 907 (9th Cir. 2003) (explaining that 14 considering documents outside the complain normally converts to a summary judgment 15 motion). Second, Plaintiff must clearly identify the law or right he thinks was violated, 16 explain what each defendant did, when and where they did it, and how each defendant’s 17 acts or omissions caused him harm. The Court strongly encourages Plaintiff to use this 18 district’s Pro Se Non-Prisoner Form Complaint for a Civil Case. 19 /// 20 /// 21 /// 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 CONCLUSION 2 The Court DENIES Plaintiff's application to proceed IFP and directs the Clerk of 3 || Court to close the case. To re-open the case, Plaintiff must either (1) pay the required filing 4 or (2) submit a fully completed IFP application that is granted by the Court. 5 The Court further directs the Clerk of Court to mail the Plaintiff a copy of this Order, 6 ||a blank copy of this district’s Application to Proceed IFP, and a blank copy of this district’s 7 Se Non-Prisoner Form Complaint for a Civil Case. 8 It is SO ORDERED. 9 Dated: November 20, 2025 OE Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 1] United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28