Lopez v. County of Orange et al

1
25-CV-2761 JLS (BLM)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ARTHUR LOPEZ,
Plaintiff,
v.
COUNTY OF ORANGE, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No.: 25-CV-2761 JLS (BLM)
ORDER:
(1) GRANTING APPLICATION TO
PROCEED IN DISTRICT COURT
WITHOUT PREPAYING FEES OR
COSTS,
(2) GRANTING MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO ELECTRONICALLY
FILE DOCUMENTS,
(3) DISMISSING COMPLAINT
WITH LEAVE TO AMEND,
(4) DENYING AS MOOT REQUEST
FOR APPOINTMENT OF
COUNSEL, AND
(5) DENYING AS MOOT MOTION
TO HAVE THE COURT DIRECT US
MARSHALS TO PROVIDE
SERVICE ON DEFENDANTS
(ECF Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5).
Case 3:25-cv-02761-JLS-JAC Document 7 Filed 03/19/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 7

2
25-CV-2761 JLS (BLM)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Presently before the Court are pro se Plaintiff Arthur Lopez’s Complaint (“Compl.,”
ECF No. 1), Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs
(“IFP Appl.,” ECF No. 2), Motion for Leave to Electronically File Documents (“E-File
Mot.,” ECF No. 3), Request for Appointment of Counsel (“Request for Counsel,” ECF No.
4), and Motion to Have the Court Direct US Marshals to Provide Service on Defendants
(“Service Mot.,” ECF No. 5). Having carefully considered Plaintiff’s Complaint and the
law, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s IFP Application, GRANTS Plaintiff’s E-File Motion,
DISMISSES Plaintiff’s Complaint WITH LEAVE TO AMEND, DENIES AS MOOT
Plaintiff’s Request for Counsel, and DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiff’s Motion for Service.
IN FORMA PAUPERIS APPLICATION
All parties instituting a civil action, suit, or proceeding in a district court of the
United States, other than a petition for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of $405.1
28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed despite a party’s failure to pay the filing fee
only if the party is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(a)(1).
Section 1915(a)(1) provides:
[A]ny 	court 	of 	the 	United 	States 	may 	authorize 	the
commencement, prosecution or defense of any suit, action or
proceeding . . . without prepayment of fees or security therefor,
by a person who submits an affidavit that includes a statement of
all assets such [person] possesses that the person is unable to pay
such fees or give security therefor.
As § 1915(a)(1) does not itself define what constitutes insufficient assets to warrant
IFP status, the determination of indigency falls within the district court’s discretion. 	See
Cal. Men’s Colony v. Rowland, 939 F.2d 854, 858 (9th Cir. 1991) (“Section 1915 typically
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) (Judicial Conference Schedule of Fees, District Court Misc. Fee Schedule, § 14 (eff.
Dec. 1, 2023)). The additional $55 administrative fee does not apply to persons granted leave to proceed
in forma pauperis. Id.
Case 3:25-cv-02761-JLS-JAC Document 7 Filed 03/19/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 7

3
25-CV-2761 JLS (BLM)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
requires the reviewing court to exercise its sound discretion in determining whether the
affiant has satisfied the statute’s requirement of indigency.”), reversed on other grounds
by, 506 U.S. 194 (1993). “An affidavit in support of an IFP application is sufficient where
it alleges that the affiant cannot pay the court costs and still afford the necessities of life.”
Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 2015) (citing Adkins v. E.I. Du Pont
de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948)). “One need not be absolutely destitute to
obtain benefits of the [IFP] statute.” Jefferson v. United States, 277 F.2d 723, 725 (9th Cir.
1960). 	“Nevertheless, a plaintiff seeking IFP status must allege poverty ‘with some
particularity, definiteness[,] and certainty.’” Escobedo, 787 F.3d at 1234.
In Plaintiff’s IFP Application, Plaintiff states that his monthly income is $1,330.00.
IFP Appl. at 2. Plaintiff lists no employer, savings of $1, and states his monthly expenses
total $1,300.00. 	See generally id. 	The Court is satisfied that Plaintiff has adequately
demonstrated that paying the $405 filing fee would result in his inability to afford the
necessities of life. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s IFP Application.
MOTION TO ELECTRONICALLY FILE DOCUMENTS
Plaintiff seeks permission to electronically file in this case. 	E-File Mot. at 1.
Generally, “[e]xcept as prescribed by local rule, order, or other procedure, the Court has
designated all cases to be assigned to the Electronic Filing System.” 	S.D. Cal. CivLR
5.4(a). 	With respect to pro se litigants, however, “[u]nless otherwise authorized by the
court, all documents submitted for filing to the Clerk’s Office . . . must be in legible, paper
form.” 	Office of the Clerk, United States District Court for the Southern District of
California, Electronic Case Filing Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, § 2(b)
(Sept. 24, 2025) [hereinafter “ECF Manual].2 “A pro se party seeking leave to
electronically file documents must file a motion and demonstrate the means to do so
properly by stating their equipment and software capabilities in addition to agreeing to
2 Available at:
https://www.casd.uscourts.gov/_assets/pdf/cmecf/Electronic%20Case%20Filing%20Procedures%20Ma
nual.pdf.
Case 3:25-cv-02761-JLS-JAC Document 7 Filed 03/19/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 7

4
25-CV-2761 JLS (BLM)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
follow all rules and policies in the CM/ECF Administrative Policies and Procedures
Manual.” Id.
The ECF Manual refers to the Court’s official website for CM/ECF technical
specifications, id. § 1(i), which include a “[c]omputer running on Windows or Macintosh”;
“[s]oftware to convert documents from a word processor format to portable document
format (PDF),” such as “Adobe Acrobat 7.0 and higher”; “[i]nternet access supporting a
transfer rate of 56kb or higher”; a compatible browser, such as “Firefox 3.5, and Internet
Explorer 6.0 and 7.0”; a “[s]canner to image non-computerized documents 400 pixels per
inch (ppi)”; and a PACER account. 	United States District Court, Southern District of
California, 	CM/ECF 	Information: 	General 	Information,
https://www.casd.uscourts.gov/cmecf.aspx (last visited Oct. 23, 2025).
Here, Plaintiff has provided the required particulars about his access to technology
conforming to the CM/ECF technical specifications noted above, and Plaintiff has agreed
to be bound by the rules and policies in the ECF Manual. E-File Mot. at 1. Accordingly,
the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s E-File Motion.
SCREENING PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)
I. 	Legal Standard
Because Plaintiff seeks to proceed IFP, his Complaint requires a pre-answer
screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 	See, e.g., Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845,
845 (9th Cir. 2002) (per curiam) (holding “the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) are
not limited to prisoners”); see also Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126–27 (9th Cir. 2000)
(en banc) (“[S]ection 1915(e) not only permits but requires a district court to dismiss an
[IFP] complaint that fails to state a claim.”). Under this statute, the Court sua sponte must
dismiss a complaint, or any portion of it, that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim,
or seeks damages from immune defendants. 	See Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1126–27. 	“The
purpose of [screening] is ‘to ensure that the targets of frivolous or malicious suits need not
bear the expense of responding.’” 	Nordstrom v. Ryan, 762 F.3d 903, 920 n.1 (9th Cir.
2014) (citations omitted).
Case 3:25-cv-02761-JLS-JAC Document 7 Filed 03/19/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
4 of 7

5
25-CV-2761 JLS (BLM)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
“The standard for determining whether a plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is the same as the Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) standard for failure to state a claim.” 	Watison v. Carter,
668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012). 	Rule 12(b)(6) requires a complaint to “contain
sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.’” 	Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). 	A claim is facially plausible “when the plaintiff
pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the
defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” 	Id. 	Plausibility requires pleading facts
supporting a claim for relief, as opposed to conclusory allegations or the “formulaic
recitation of the elements of a cause of action.” 	Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. 	The “mere
possibility 	of 	misconduct” 	or 	“unadorned, 	the 	defendant-unlawfully-harmed 	me
accusation[s]” fall short of meeting this plausibility standard. 	Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678–79;
see also Moss v. U.S. Secret Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009).
Independently, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 requires pleadings to state “a short
and 	plain 	statement 	of 	the 	claim 	showing 	that 	the 	pleader 	is 	entitled 	to 	relief.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). “Each allegation must be simple, concise, and direct.” Id. 8(d)(1).
Rule 8 “applies to good claims as well as bad, and is a basis for dismissal independent of
Rule 12(b)(6).” McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 1996) (citations omitted).
A complaint which is “argumentative, prolix, replete with redundancy, and largely
irrelevant” does not meet Rule 8’s requirement of simplicity, directness, and clarity. 	Id.
at 1177–78.
Further, courts have a duty to construe a pro se litigant’s pleadings liberally. 	See
Karim-Panahi v. L.A. Police Dep’t, 839 F.2d 621, 623 (9th Cir. 1988). 	A district court
should grant leave to amend if it appears “at all possible that the plaintiff can correct the
defect.” 	Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1130 (quoting Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d
696, 701 (9th Cir. 1988)).
/ / /
Case 3:25-cv-02761-JLS-JAC Document 7 Filed 03/19/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
5 of 7

6
25-CV-2761 JLS (BLM)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
II. 	Discussion
Plaintiff appears to bring claims for: (1) violations under the California Tort Claims
Act; (2) tortious interference; (3) negligence; (4) violations under the Americans with
Disabilities Act; (5) fraud; (6) civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985;
(7) infliction of emotional distress; (8) violations under the California Unruh Civil Rights
Act; and (9) violations under the Bane Act. ECF 1-1 at 1–4.
Plaintiff’s allegations lack the requisite clarity to provide Defendants “fair notice of
what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” 	Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555
(quotation and alteration omitted); see also McHenry, 84 F.3d at 1178 (explaining that a
complaint lacking “simplicity, conciseness and clarity as to whom [a plaintiff is] suing for
what wrongs, fails to perform the essential functions of a complaint”). As the Complaint
fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, the Court must sua sponte dismiss
it pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
However, as the nature of Plaintiff’s claims is not fully comprehensible by the Court
at this time, the Court cannot rule out the possibility that Plaintiff can plausibly allege facts
addressing the deficiencies described in this Order. 	Thus, the Court will grant Plaintiff
leave to amend his complaint.
CONCLUSION
In light of the above, the Court:
1. 	GRANTS Plaintiff’s IFP Application (ECF No. 2).
2. 	GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Electronically File Documents
(ECF No. 3).
3. 	DISMISSES Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1) WITHOUT PREJUDICE
for its failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2). Given Plaintiff’s pro se status, the dismissal is WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.
Plaintiff thus has forty-five (45) days’ leave from the date of this Order to file an amended
complaint curing the pleading deficiencies noted above. 	Plaintiff is advised that an
amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. 	Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693
Case 3:25-cv-02761-JLS-JAC Document 7 Filed 03/19/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
6 of 7

7
25-CV-2761 JLS (BLM)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
F.3d 896, 927 (9th Cir. 2012). Any amended complaint must be complete in and of itself
without reference to Plaintiff’s original Complaint or FAC; claims not realleged in the
amended complaint will be considered waived. See S.D. Cal. CivLR 15.1; Lacey, 693 F.3d
at 928 (noting that claims dismissed with leave to amend that are not realleged in an
amended pleading may be “considered waived”). 	If Plaintiff fails to amend within the
time provided, the Court will enter a final order dismissing this civil action. See Lira v.
Herrera, 427 F.3d 1164, 1169 (9th Cir. 2005) (“If a plaintiff does not take advantage of
the opportunity to fix his complaint, a district court may convert the dismissal of the
complaint into dismissal of the entire action.”).
4. 	DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiff’s Request for Appointment of Counsel (ECF
No. 4). 	If Plaintiff files an amended complaint as provided herein, he may file another
request for appointment of counsel.
5. 	DENIES AS MOOT 	Plaintiff’s Motion to Have the Court Direct US
Marshals to Provide Service on Defendants (ECF No. 5).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 19, 2026
Case 3:25-cv-02761-JLS-JAC Document 7 Filed 03/19/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
7 of 7