Pineda Aguila v. Non-Defendant

S.D. California

Pineda Aguila v. Non-Defendant

DecidedJune 10, 2025

Docket3:25-cv-00559

StatusUnknown

This text of Pineda Aguila v. Non-Defendant (Pineda Aguila v. Non-Defendant) 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

Pineda Aguila v. Non-Defendant, (S.D. Cal. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROSA ADRIANA PINEDA AGUILA, Case No.: 3:25-cv-00559-JAH-DEB

12 ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR Plaintiff, 13 LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA v. PAUPERIS AND DISMISSING 14 ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE NON-DEFENDANT, 15

[ECF No. 2] 16 Defendant. 17 18 19 INTRODUCTION 20 Plaintiff Rosa Adriana Pineda Aguila (hereinafter, “Plaintiff”), proceeding as a non- 21 prisoner pro se party, filed a civil Complaint on March 10, 2025, against “Non-Defendant.” 22 ECF No. 1 (“Complaint” or “Compl.”). Plaintiff also filed a Motion for Leave to Proceed 23 in forma pauperis, along with an attached Affidavit in Support of the Application. ECF 24 No. 2 (“Affidavit”). 25 DISCUSSION 26 I. Plaintiff’s IFP Motion 27 All parties instituting any civil action, suit, or proceeding in a district court of 28 the United States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of 1 $455. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). However, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(a), if the 2 plaintiff is granted leave to proceed IFP, he may proceed despite failure to pay the entire 3 fee. See Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 2007); Rodriguez v. Cook, 4 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). For a court to grant leave to proceed IFP, the plaintiff 5 is required to submit an affidavit, including a statement of all their assets, showing his 6 inability to pay the statutory fee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). The plaintiff need not be 7 penniless to proceed IFP, rather the affidavit need only state the plaintiff cannot, “because 8 of his poverty[,] pay or give security for costs … and still be able to provide himself and 9 dependents with the necessities of life.” Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 10 U.S. 331, 339 (1948). The determination of indigency is solely within the district court’s 11 discretion. Cal. Men’s Colony v. Rowland, 939 F.2d 854, 858 (9th Cir. 1991), rev’d on 12 other grounds, 506 U.S. 194 (1993). 13 Here, Plaintiff left every box pertaining to Plaintiff’s income and expenses blank on 14 the financial affidavit. See Affidavit at 1-5. Therefore, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate 15 an inability to pay. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis 16 is DENIED without prejudice. 17 II. Sua Sponte Screening Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) 18 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), a plaintiff who seeks leave to proceed IFP subjects 19 their Complaint to sua sponte review, and mandatory dismissal, if the action or appeal “is 20 frivolous or malicious; fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or seeks 21 monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” See 28 U.S.C. § 22 1915(e)(2)(B); Coleman v. Tollefson, 575 U.S. 532, 538 (2015) (pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 23 1915(e)(2), the “court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that… (B) 24 25 26 1 In addition to the $350 statutory fee, civil litigants must pay an additional 27 administrative fee of $55. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) (Judicial Conference Schedule Fees, District Court Misc. Fee Schedule, § 14 (eff. Dec. 1, 2023)). The additional $55 28 1 the action or appeal… (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted”); Lopez v. 2 Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (section 1915(e) “not only permits 3 but requires, a district court to dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint that fails to state a 4 claim”). “The standard for determining whether a plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon 5 which relief can be granted under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is the same as the Federal Rule of 6 Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) standard for failure to state a claim.” Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 7 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012). Moreover, when—as here—the plaintiff is proceeding pro se, 8 these pleading standards are even less stringent because “[a] document filed pro se is ‘to 9 be liberally construed[.]’” See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). 10 Rule 12(b)(6) challenges the sufficiency of the complaint. Navarro v. Block, 250 11 F.3d 729, 732 (9th Cir. 2001). A complaint may be dismissed as a matter of law because 12 of a “lack of a cognizable legal theory or [] insufficient facts under a cognizable legal 13 claim”. Robertson v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 749 F.2d 530, 534 (9th Cir. 1984); 14 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 326 (1989) (“Rule 12(b)(6) authorizes a court to dismiss 15 a claim on the basis of a dispositive issue of law”). Although Rule 12(b)(6) does not require 16 detailed essential facts, it must plead sufficient facts that, if true, “raise a right to relief 17 above speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 545 (2007). If 18 the court finds a complaint fails to state a claim, the court should grant leave to amend, 19 unless it determines that the pleading could not possibly be cured by the allegation of other 20 facts. See Doe v. United States, 58 F.3d 494, 497 (9th Cir. 1995). 21 Here, Plaintiff fails to identify a defendant in his Pro Se Form Complaint. See 22 Compl. at 1-2. Furthermore, Plaintiff fails to identify any legally recognized causes of 23 action. Plaintiff fills out three “claims for relief” on the complaint form, which read: (1) 24 “I would like to claim to court a background check in all parts of the United States”; (2) 25 “Debarred Removol [sic]”; and (3) “System.” None of these are cognizable claims. 26 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED this case is DISMISSED without prejudice. 27 /// 28 /// 1 CONCLUSION 2 || For all the reasons discussed above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 3 1. Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed IFP, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(c), is 4 DENIED without prejudice. ECF No. 2. 5 2. Plaintiffs case is DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 6 1915(e)(2)(B) Gi). 7 3.

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 ROSA ADRIANA PINEDA AGUILA, Case No.: 3:25-cv-00559-JAH-DEB

12 ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR Plaintiff, 13 LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA v. PAUPERIS AND DISMISSING 14 ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE NON-DEFENDANT, 15

[ECF No. 2] 16 Defendant. 17 18 19 INTRODUCTION 20 Plaintiff Rosa Adriana Pineda Aguila (hereinafter, “Plaintiff”), proceeding as a non- 21 prisoner pro se party, filed a civil Complaint on March 10, 2025, against “Non-Defendant.” 22 ECF No. 1 (“Complaint” or “Compl.”). Plaintiff also filed a Motion for Leave to Proceed 23 in forma pauperis, along with an attached Affidavit in Support of the Application. ECF 24 No. 2 (“Affidavit”). 25 DISCUSSION 26 I. Plaintiff’s IFP Motion 27 All parties instituting any civil action, suit, or proceeding in a district court of 28 the United States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of 1 $455. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). However, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(a), if the 2 plaintiff is granted leave to proceed IFP, he may proceed despite failure to pay the entire 3 fee. See Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 2007); Rodriguez v. Cook, 4 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). For a court to grant leave to proceed IFP, the plaintiff 5 is required to submit an affidavit, including a statement of all their assets, showing his 6 inability to pay the statutory fee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). The plaintiff need not be 7 penniless to proceed IFP, rather the affidavit need only state the plaintiff cannot, “because 8 of his poverty[,] pay or give security for costs … and still be able to provide himself and 9 dependents with the necessities of life.” Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 10 U.S. 331, 339 (1948). The determination of indigency is solely within the district court’s 11 discretion. Cal. Men’s Colony v. Rowland, 939 F.2d 854, 858 (9th Cir. 1991), rev’d on 12 other grounds, 506 U.S. 194 (1993). 13 Here, Plaintiff left every box pertaining to Plaintiff’s income and expenses blank on 14 the financial affidavit. See Affidavit at 1-5. Therefore, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate 15 an inability to pay. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis 16 is DENIED without prejudice. 17 II. Sua Sponte Screening Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) 18 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), a plaintiff who seeks leave to proceed IFP subjects 19 their Complaint to sua sponte review, and mandatory dismissal, if the action or appeal “is 20 frivolous or malicious; fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or seeks 21 monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” See 28 U.S.C. § 22 1915(e)(2)(B); Coleman v. Tollefson, 575 U.S. 532, 538 (2015) (pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 23 1915(e)(2), the “court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that… (B) 24 25 26 1 In addition to the $350 statutory fee, civil litigants must pay an additional 27 administrative fee of $55. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) (Judicial Conference Schedule Fees, District Court Misc. Fee Schedule, § 14 (eff. Dec. 1, 2023)). The additional $55 28 1 the action or appeal… (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted”); Lopez v. 2 Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (section 1915(e) “not only permits 3 but requires, a district court to dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint that fails to state a 4 claim”). “The standard for determining whether a plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon 5 which relief can be granted under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is the same as the Federal Rule of 6 Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) standard for failure to state a claim.” Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 7 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012). Moreover, when—as here—the plaintiff is proceeding pro se, 8 these pleading standards are even less stringent because “[a] document filed pro se is ‘to 9 be liberally construed[.]’” See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). 10 Rule 12(b)(6) challenges the sufficiency of the complaint. Navarro v. Block, 250 11 F.3d 729, 732 (9th Cir. 2001). A complaint may be dismissed as a matter of law because 12 of a “lack of a cognizable legal theory or [] insufficient facts under a cognizable legal 13 claim”. Robertson v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 749 F.2d 530, 534 (9th Cir. 1984); 14 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 326 (1989) (“Rule 12(b)(6) authorizes a court to dismiss 15 a claim on the basis of a dispositive issue of law”). Although Rule 12(b)(6) does not require 16 detailed essential facts, it must plead sufficient facts that, if true, “raise a right to relief 17 above speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 545 (2007). If 18 the court finds a complaint fails to state a claim, the court should grant leave to amend, 19 unless it determines that the pleading could not possibly be cured by the allegation of other 20 facts. See Doe v. United States, 58 F.3d 494, 497 (9th Cir. 1995). 21 Here, Plaintiff fails to identify a defendant in his Pro Se Form Complaint. See 22 Compl. at 1-2. Furthermore, Plaintiff fails to identify any legally recognized causes of 23 action. Plaintiff fills out three “claims for relief” on the complaint form, which read: (1) 24 “I would like to claim to court a background check in all parts of the United States”; (2) 25 “Debarred Removol [sic]”; and (3) “System.” None of these are cognizable claims. 26 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED this case is DISMISSED without prejudice. 27 /// 28 /// 1 CONCLUSION 2 || For all the reasons discussed above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 3 1. Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed IFP, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(c), is 4 DENIED without prejudice. ECF No. 2. 5 2. Plaintiffs case is DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 6 1915(e)(2)(B) Gi). 7 3. The Court GRANTS Plaintiff till July 18, 2025, to file an Amended Complaint 8 which cures the deficiencies of the pleading described herein. Plaintiff is 9 cautioned, however, that should he choose to file an Amended Complaint, it must 10 be complete by itself, comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 11 including Rule 8(a), and that any claim not re-alleged will be considered waived. 12 See S.D. Cal. Civ.L.R. 15.1; Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co., 13 Inc., 896 F.2d 1542, 1546 (9th Cir. 1989) (“[A]n amended pleading supersedes 14 the original”); Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 928 (9th Cir. 2012) 15 (noting that claims dismissed with leave to amend which are not re-alleged in an 16 amended pleading may be considered “waived if not repled’’). A failure to file 17 an Amended Complaint will result in dismissal of this action without further 18 order of the Court. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 || DATED: June 10, 2025 1 OHN A. HOUSTON 22 J UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Pineda Aguila v. Non-Defendant, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pineda-aguila-v-non-defendant-casd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack