1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 VALERIE FLORES, Case No. 2:26-cv-00287-DJC-CSK PS 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 CA CARES, et al., (ECF Nos. 1, 11) 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Valerie Flores is representing herself in this action and seeks leave to 18 proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.1 (ECF No. 11.) For the 19 reasons that follow, the Court recommends that Plaintiff’s IFP application be denied, and 20 the Complaint be dismissed without leave to amend. 22 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) provides that the court may authorize the commencement, 23 prosecution or defense of any suit without prepayment of fees or security “by a person 24 who submits an affidavit stating the person is “unable to pay such fees or give security 25 therefor.” This affidavit is to include, among other things, a statement of all assets the 26 person possesses. Id. The IFP statute does not itself define what constitutes insufficient 27 1 This matter proceeds before the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, Fed. R. 28 Civ. P. 72, and Local Rule 302(c). 1 assets. See Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 2015). In Escobedo, 2 the Ninth Circuit stated that an affidavit in support of an IFP application is sufficient 3 where it alleges that the affiant cannot pay court costs and still afford the necessities of 4 life. Id. “One need not be absolutely destitute to obtain benefits of the in forma pauperis 5 statute.” Id. Nonetheless, a party seeking IFP status must allege poverty “with some 6 particularity, definiteness and certainty.” Id. According to the United States Department 7 of Health and Human Services, the current poverty guideline for a household of one (not 8 residing in Alaska or Hawaii) is $15,060.00. See U.S. Dpt. Health & Human Service 9 (available at https://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty-guidelines). 10 Here, Plaintiff’s IFP affidavit states that disability payments are her only source of 11 income and she supports one minor child. See ECF No. 11. Plaintiff has made the 12 required showing under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See id. However, the Court will 13 recommend Plaintiff’s IFP application be denied because the action is facially frivolous or 14 without merit because it fails to state a claim and lacks subject matter jurisdiction. “‘A 15 district court may deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis at the outset if it appears from 16 the face of the proposed complaint that the action is frivolous or without merit.’” Minetti v. 17 Port of Seattle, 152 F.3d 1113, 1115 (9th Cir. 1998) (quoting Tripati v. First Nat. Bank & 18 Tr., 821 F.2d 1368, 1370 (9th Cir. 1987)); see also McGee v. Dep’t of Child Support 19 Servs., 584 Fed. App’x 638 (9th Cir. 2014) (“the district court did not abuse its discretion 20 by denying McGee's request to proceed IFP because it appears from the face of the 21 amended complaint that McGee's action is frivolous or without merit”); Smart v. Heinze, 22 347 F.2d 114, 116 (9th Cir. 1965) (“It is the duty of the District Court to examine any 23 application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis to determine whether the proposed 24 proceeding has merit and if it appears that the proceeding is without merit, the court is 25 bound to deny a motion seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis.”). Because it 26 appears from the face of the Complaint that this action is frivolous or is without merit as 27 discussed in more detail below, the Court recommends denying Plaintiff’s IFP motion. 28 / / / 2 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the court must screen every in forma pauperis 3 proceeding, and must order dismissal of the case if it is “frivolous or malicious,” “fails to 4 state a claim on which relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief against a 5 defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Lopez v. Smith, 6 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (2000) (en banc). A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an 7 arguable basis either in law or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). In 8 reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court accepts as true the factual 9 allegations contained in the complaint, unless they are clearly baseless or fanciful, and 10 construes those allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See Neitzke, 490 11 U.S. at 327; Von Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art at Pasadena, 592 F.3d 954, 960 12 (9th Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 564 U.S. 1037 (2011). 13 Pleadings by self-represented litigants are liberally construed. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 14 F.3d 338, 342 & n.7 (9th Cir. 2010) (liberal construction appropriate even post–Iqbal). 15 However, the court need not accept as true conclusory allegations, unreasonable 16 inferences, or unwarranted deductions of fact. Western Mining Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d 17 618, 624 (9th Cir. 1981). A formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action does 18 not suffice to state a claim. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-57 (2007); 19 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). 20 To state a claim on which relief may be granted, the plaintiff must allege enough 21 facts “to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A 22 claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court 23 to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” 24 Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. A pro se litigant is entitled to notice of the deficiencies in the 25 complaint and an opportunity to amend unless the complaint’s deficiencies could not be 26 cured by amendment. See Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1130-31; Cahill v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 80 27 F.3d 336, 339 (9th Cir. 1996). 28 / / / 2 Plaintiff brings this action against two defendants: CA Cares and California Crime 3 Victim Compensation Program. See ECF No. 1, “Compl.” Plaintiff, a resident of New 4 York state, asserts both federal question and diversity jurisdiction. Id. at 3. Yet the 5 Complaint neither invokes federal law nor requests damages in any specific amount. 6 Plaintiff alleges that Defendants “will not pay out on a crime victim compensation 7 claim. . . . [and] need to compensate me for the crimes that happened to me in their 8 state.” Id. Plaintiff alleges that unspecified “CA workers” have been harassing and 9 stalking her and that “fraudulent medical examiners” have committed medical 10 malpractice. Id. Her allegations describing the alleged harassment are confusing and 11 concern legal proceedings in Victorville, California. Id. at 4. Plaintiff identifies no legal 12 basis for her claims.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 VALERIE FLORES, Case No. 2:26-cv-00287-DJC-CSK PS 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 CA CARES, et al., (ECF Nos. 1, 11) 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Valerie Flores is representing herself in this action and seeks leave to 18 proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.1 (ECF No. 11.) For the 19 reasons that follow, the Court recommends that Plaintiff’s IFP application be denied, and 20 the Complaint be dismissed without leave to amend. 22 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) provides that the court may authorize the commencement, 23 prosecution or defense of any suit without prepayment of fees or security “by a person 24 who submits an affidavit stating the person is “unable to pay such fees or give security 25 therefor.” This affidavit is to include, among other things, a statement of all assets the 26 person possesses. Id. The IFP statute does not itself define what constitutes insufficient 27 1 This matter proceeds before the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, Fed. R. 28 Civ. P. 72, and Local Rule 302(c). 1 assets. See Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 2015). In Escobedo, 2 the Ninth Circuit stated that an affidavit in support of an IFP application is sufficient 3 where it alleges that the affiant cannot pay court costs and still afford the necessities of 4 life. Id. “One need not be absolutely destitute to obtain benefits of the in forma pauperis 5 statute.” Id. Nonetheless, a party seeking IFP status must allege poverty “with some 6 particularity, definiteness and certainty.” Id. According to the United States Department 7 of Health and Human Services, the current poverty guideline for a household of one (not 8 residing in Alaska or Hawaii) is $15,060.00. See U.S. Dpt. Health & Human Service 9 (available at https://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty-guidelines). 10 Here, Plaintiff’s IFP affidavit states that disability payments are her only source of 11 income and she supports one minor child. See ECF No. 11. Plaintiff has made the 12 required showing under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See id. However, the Court will 13 recommend Plaintiff’s IFP application be denied because the action is facially frivolous or 14 without merit because it fails to state a claim and lacks subject matter jurisdiction. “‘A 15 district court may deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis at the outset if it appears from 16 the face of the proposed complaint that the action is frivolous or without merit.’” Minetti v. 17 Port of Seattle, 152 F.3d 1113, 1115 (9th Cir. 1998) (quoting Tripati v. First Nat. Bank & 18 Tr., 821 F.2d 1368, 1370 (9th Cir. 1987)); see also McGee v. Dep’t of Child Support 19 Servs., 584 Fed. App’x 638 (9th Cir. 2014) (“the district court did not abuse its discretion 20 by denying McGee's request to proceed IFP because it appears from the face of the 21 amended complaint that McGee's action is frivolous or without merit”); Smart v. Heinze, 22 347 F.2d 114, 116 (9th Cir. 1965) (“It is the duty of the District Court to examine any 23 application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis to determine whether the proposed 24 proceeding has merit and if it appears that the proceeding is without merit, the court is 25 bound to deny a motion seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis.”). Because it 26 appears from the face of the Complaint that this action is frivolous or is without merit as 27 discussed in more detail below, the Court recommends denying Plaintiff’s IFP motion. 28 / / / 2 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the court must screen every in forma pauperis 3 proceeding, and must order dismissal of the case if it is “frivolous or malicious,” “fails to 4 state a claim on which relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief against a 5 defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Lopez v. Smith, 6 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (2000) (en banc). A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an 7 arguable basis either in law or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). In 8 reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court accepts as true the factual 9 allegations contained in the complaint, unless they are clearly baseless or fanciful, and 10 construes those allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See Neitzke, 490 11 U.S. at 327; Von Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art at Pasadena, 592 F.3d 954, 960 12 (9th Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 564 U.S. 1037 (2011). 13 Pleadings by self-represented litigants are liberally construed. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 14 F.3d 338, 342 & n.7 (9th Cir. 2010) (liberal construction appropriate even post–Iqbal). 15 However, the court need not accept as true conclusory allegations, unreasonable 16 inferences, or unwarranted deductions of fact. Western Mining Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d 17 618, 624 (9th Cir. 1981). A formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action does 18 not suffice to state a claim. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-57 (2007); 19 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). 20 To state a claim on which relief may be granted, the plaintiff must allege enough 21 facts “to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A 22 claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court 23 to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” 24 Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. A pro se litigant is entitled to notice of the deficiencies in the 25 complaint and an opportunity to amend unless the complaint’s deficiencies could not be 26 cured by amendment. See Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1130-31; Cahill v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 80 27 F.3d 336, 339 (9th Cir. 1996). 28 / / / 2 Plaintiff brings this action against two defendants: CA Cares and California Crime 3 Victim Compensation Program. See ECF No. 1, “Compl.” Plaintiff, a resident of New 4 York state, asserts both federal question and diversity jurisdiction. Id. at 3. Yet the 5 Complaint neither invokes federal law nor requests damages in any specific amount. 6 Plaintiff alleges that Defendants “will not pay out on a crime victim compensation 7 claim. . . . [and] need to compensate me for the crimes that happened to me in their 8 state.” Id. Plaintiff alleges that unspecified “CA workers” have been harassing and 9 stalking her and that “fraudulent medical examiners” have committed medical 10 malpractice. Id. Her allegations describing the alleged harassment are confusing and 11 concern legal proceedings in Victorville, California. Id. at 4. Plaintiff identifies no legal 12 basis for her claims. 14 Plaintiff’s Complaint does not contain a short and plain statement of a claim as 15 required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. In order to give fair notice of the claims 16 and the grounds on which they rest, a plaintiff must allege with at least some degree of 17 particularity overt acts by specific defendants which support the claims. See Kimes v. 18 Stone, 84 F.3d 1121, 1129 (9th Cir. 1996). Here, Plaintiff does not assert any legal 19 claims but merely makes vague allegations of wrongdoing. Nor is it clear how either 20 Defendant was involved in the complained-of acts. In addition to falling short of the Rule 21 8 pleading requirements, the Complaint fails to state a claim against any defendant. 22 Thus it is subject to dismissal at the screening stage. 23 Also, insofar as Plaintiff’s claims concern ongoing state court proceedings, they 24 are barred by the Younger abstention doctrine. Federal courts are generally required to 25 abstain from interfering with ongoing state court proceedings. Younger v. Harris, 401 26 U.S. 37, 43-45 (1971). Abstention of the federal court is required under Younger when 27 “(1) there is ‘an ongoing state judicial proceeding’; (2) the proceeding ‘implicate[s] 28 important state interests’; (3) there is ‘an adequate opportunity in the state proceedings 1 to raise constitutional challenges’; and (4) the requested relief ‘seek[s] to enjoin’ or has 2 ‘the practical effect of enjoining’ the ongoing state judicial proceeding.” Arevalo v. 3 Hennessy, 882 F.3d 763, 765 (9th Cir. 2018) (citations omitted). The Complaint suggests 4 that Plaintiff may be involved in an ongoing criminal case in California. The federal court 5 must abstain from interfering with these proceedings. In sum, all claims in the Complaint 6 should be dismissed. 7 In considering whether leave to amend should be granted, the Court considers 8 that the Complaint does not present a non-frivolous claim. In light of the Court’s lack of 9 subject matter jurisdiction and the Complaint’s many deficiencies, it appears granting 10 leave to amend would be futile. The Complaint should therefore be dismissed without 11 leave to amend. 13 Based upon the findings above, it is RECOMMENDED that: 14 1. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 11) be DENIED; 15 2. Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1) be DISMISSED without leave to amend; 16 and 17 3. The Clerk of the Court be directed to CLOSE this case. 18 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 19 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within 20 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file 21 written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. This document should 22 be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any 23 reply to the objections shall be served on all parties and filed with the Court within 14 24 days after service of the objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time 25 may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 || 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir. 1991). 2 3 || Dated: April 20, 2026 C S \U 4 CHI S00 KIM 5 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 7 || 6/flor0287.screen.f&r 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28